BT  75  .M55  v. 2,  c.2 
Miley,  John,  1813-1895 
Systematic  theology 


V7 

CjDp 


n  '- 


4- 

BIBL] 

THE  LIBRARY  OF 

[CAL  AND  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATI 

IRE. 

EDITED   BY 

REV.  GEORGE  R.  CROOKS,  D.D..  LI.D., 

VOL.  I. 

BISHOP  JOHN  F.  HURST,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

$4  00 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  HOLY 
SCRIPTURES.     By  Rev.  Henry  M.  Harman,  D.D. 

"    11. 

BIBLICAL  HERMENEUTICS.     By  Rev.   Milton  S. 
Terry.  D.D.,  LL.D 

3  00 

"  111. 

THEOLOGICAL    ENCYCLOPAEDIA  AND  METH- 
ODOLOGY.    By  Rev.   George  R.   Crooks,   D.D., 
LL.D..  and  Bishop  John  F.  Hurst,  D.D..  LL.D.,     . 

3  50 

'•  IV. 

CHRISTIAN    ARCHAEOLOGY.      By  Rev.  Charles 
W.  Bennett,  D.D.     With  an  Introductory  Notice  by 
Dr.  Ferdinand  Piper 

3  50 

"    V. 

SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY.    Vol.  1.    By  Rev.  John 
Miley,  D.D..  LL.D 

3  00 

•'  VI. 

SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY.      Vol.    11.       By    Rev. 
John  Miley.  D.D.,  LL.D 

3  00 

LIBRARY 


BIBLICAL  AND  THEOLOCtICAL 


LITERATURE 


EDITED    BY 

GEORGE  R.  CROOKS,  D.D. 

AND 

JOHN    F.    HURST,    D.D. 


VOL.  VI -SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 


NEW  YORK:    EATON   &  MAINS 
CINCINNATI  :     CURTS     &    JENNINGS 


PUBLISHERS'  ANNOUNCEMENT. 


rpHE  design  of  the  Editors  and  Publishers  of  the  Biblical 
AND  Theological  Libkaey  is  to  furnish  ministers  and  lay- 
men with  a  series  of  works  which,  in  connection  with  the 
Commentaries  now  issuing,  shall  make  a  compendious  appa- 
ratus for  study.  While  the  theology  of  the  volumes  will  be  in 
harmony  with  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  aim  will  be  to  make  the  entire  Library  acceptable 
to  all  evangelical  Christians. 

The  following  writers  Mall  co-operate  in  the  authorship  of 
the  series :  Dr.  Harman,  on  the  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures ;  Dr.  Terry,  on  Biblical  Hermeneutics ; 
Dr.  Bennett,  on  Christian  Archaeology ;  Dr.  Miley,  on  System- 
atic Theology ;  the  Editors,  on  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and 
Methodology ;  Dr.  Ridgaway,  on  the  Evidences  of  Cliristianity ; 
Prof.  Charles  J.  Little,  on  Christian  Theism  and  Modern  Spec- 
ulative Thought ;  Dr.  Crooks,  on  the  History  of  Christian 
Doctrine ;  and  Bishop  Hurst,  on  the  History  of  the  Christian 
Church.  The  volumes  on  Litroduction  to  the  Scriptures,  Bib- 
lical Hermeneutics,  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Methodology, 
Christian  Archaeology,  and  the  first  volume  of  the  Systematic 
Theology  have  now  been  issued. 

In  the  case  of  every  treatise  the  latest  literature  will  be  con- 
sulted, and  its  results  incorporated.  The  works  comprised  in 
the  series  will  be  printed  in  full  octavo  size,  and  finished  in  the 
best  style  of  typography  and  binding. 


Systematic  Theology 


Tlacra  }'pa(j>7i  &E6TrvevaToc  Kal  u(j)E?.tfioc  Trpog  6/6aoKa7iiav.—iiT.  PAUL 


The  whole  drift  of  the  Scripture  of  God,  what  is  it  but  to  teach  Theology  ?  Theology, 
what  is  it  but  the  Science  of  things  divine  ?  What  Science  can  be  attained  unto  without 
the  help  of  natural  Discourse  and  Reason  ? — Hooker 


JOHN  MILEY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  Drew  Theological  Seminary^  Madison,  New  Jersey 


VOLUME  II 


NEW   YORK:    EATON   &   MAINS 
CINCINNATI:  CURTS  &  JENNINGS 


Copyright,  1894,  by 
HUNT    &    EATON 

New  York 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PART  IV.— CHRISXOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    PERSON    OF   CHRIST. 

I.  Construction  of  the  Doctrine.  page 

1.  Importance  of  a  True  Doctrine 4 

2.  Early  Need  of  Doctrinal  Construction 5 

3.  Formula  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 6 

II.  Elements  of  the  Doctrine. 

1.  The  Divine  Nature  of  Christ 10 

2.  The  Human  Nature  of  Christ 10 

3.  The  Personal  Oneness  of  Christ 12 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE    DIVINE    INCARNATION. 

I.  Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation. 

1.  Ground  of  the  Person  of  Christ 14 

2.  The  Incarnation  a  Truth  of  Scripture 14 

8.  Incarnation  of  the  Personal  Son 17 

II.  The  Two  Natures  in  Personal  Oneness. 

1.  The  Result  of  the  Incarnation 18 

2.  The  Catholic  Doctrine 18 

3.  Mystery  of  the  Doctrine 19 

CHAPTER  III. 

CHRIST    IS    THEANTHROPIC. 

I.  Theanthropic  in  Personality. 

1.  Permanent  Duality  of  His  Natures 23 

2.  Communion  of  Attributes  in  His  Personality 24 

3.  Truth  of  a  Theanthropic  Personality 24 

4.  A  Necessity  to  the  Atonement 26 

II.  The  Interpretation  of  Christologrical  Pacts. 

1.  Facts  of  Divinity  Ascribed  to  Christ 27 

2.  Facts  of  Humanity  Ascribed  to  Christ 27 

3.  Divine  Facts  Ascribed  to  Christ  as  Human 28 

4.  Human  Facts  Ascribed  to  Christ  as  Divine 28 


vi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    SYMPATHY    OF    CHRIST. 

I.  Sympathy  through  Common  Suffering.  page 

1 .  A  True  and  Deep  Law  of  Sympathy 30 

2.  Law  of  the  Sympathy  of  Christ 31 

8.  The  Law  Appropriated  in  the  Incarnation 31 

4.  Thorough  Appropriation  of  the  Law 32 

II.  The  Consciousness  of  Christ  in  Suffering. 

1.  Deeper  than  a  Human  Consciousness 36 

2.  Else,  only  a  Human  Sympathy 36 

3.  An  Utterly  Insufficient  Sympathy 36 

HI.  Suffering  in  a  Theanthropic  Consciousness. 

1.  Concerning  a  Human  Consciousness  of  the  Divine 88 

2.  Divine  Consciousness  of  the  Human 39 

3.  A  Possibility  of  the  Divine  Consciousness 40 

4.  Real  Ground  of  the  Sympathy  of  Christ 42 

5.  Light  on  the  Person  of  Christ 43 

CHAPTER  V. 

LEADING    ERRORS    IN    CHRISTOLOGY, 

I.  Earlier  Errors. 

1.  Ebionism 45 

2.  Gnosticism 46 

3.  Arianism 48 

4.  Apollinai'ianism 49 

5.  Nestorianism 51 

6.  Eutychianism : 52 

II.  Later  Errors. 

1.  The  Socinian  Christology ; 54 

2.  The  Lutheran  Christology 55 

3.  The  Kenotic  Christology 59 


PART  v.— SOXERIOLOGY. 


THE  ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST. 

PRELIMINARIES. 

1 .  Soteriology 65 

2.  Atonement  as  Fact  and  Doctrine 65 

3.  Relation  of  the  Doctrine  to  other  Doctrines 66 

4.  Definition  of  the  Atonement 68 

CHAPTER  L 

REALITY    OF    ATONEMENT, 

"Witnessing  Facts. 

1.  A  Message  of  Salvation 70 

2.  The  Salvation  in  Christ 70 


CONTENTS.  vii 

PAGE 

3.  Salvation  in  His  Suffering 71 

4.  His  Redeeming  Deatli  Necessary Vl 

5.  Only  Explanation  of  His  Suffering '72 

H.  Necessity  of  Faith  to  Salvation "72 

7.  Priesthood  and  Sacrifice ''4 

8.  Christ  a  Unique  Saviour V7 

II.  Witnessing  Terms. 

1 .  Atonement '9 

2.  Reconciliation 81 

3.  Propitiation 83 

4.  Redemption 84 

5.  Substitution 87 

CHAPTER  II. 

NECESSITY    FOR    ATONEMENT. 

I.  Ground  of  Necessity  in  Moral  Government. 

1.  Fact  of  a  Moral  Government 90 

2.  Requisites  of  a  Moral  Government 90 

3.  Divine  Determination  of  Rewards 92 

4.  Measure  of  Penalty 92 

II.  Necessity  for  Penalty. 

1.  From  its  Rectoral  Office 94 

2.  From  the  Divine  Holiness 94 

3.  From  the  Divine  Goodness 95 

4.  A  Real  Necessity  for  Atonement 95 

6.  Nature  of  the  Atonement  Indicated 95 

CHAPTER  III. 

SCHEMES  WITHOUT  ATONEMENT. 

I.  Blessedness  After  the  Penalty. 

1.  Salvation  Excluded 97 

2.  Final  Blessedness  Really  a  Salvation 98 

3.  Impossible  under  Endless  Penalty 98 

II.  Salvation  through.  Sovereign  Forgiveness. 

1 .  An  Assumption  Against  Facts 98 

2.  Contrary  to  Divine  Government 99 

3.  Subversive  of  All  Government 99 

III.  Forgiveness  on  Bepentance. 

1 .  Repentance  Necessary  100 

2.  The  Only  Kind  Naturally  Possible 100 

3.  Such  Repentance  Inevitable 101 

4.  "Without  any  Deep  Sense  of  Sin 101 

5.  True  Repentance  Only  by  Grace 101 

IV.  Some  Special  Facts. 

1.  Forgiving  One  Another 102 

2.  Parental  Forgiveness 103 

3.  Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son 103 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THEORIES    OF    ATONEMENT. 

I.  Preliminaries.  page 

1.  Earlier  Views  of  Atonement 106 

2.  Inception  of  a  Scientific  Treatment 107 

3.  Popular  Number  of  Theories 109 

4.  Scientific  Enumeration 109 

5.  Ground  for  Only  Two  Theories 112 

II.  Summary  Reviews. 

1.  Theory  of  Vicarious  Repentance 113 

2.  Theory  of  Redemption  by  Love 114 

3.  Theory  of  Self-propitiation  by  Self-sacrifice 115 

4.  Realistic  Theory 119 

5.  Mystical  Theory 119 

6.  Middle  Theory 120 

7.  Theory  of  Conditional  Penal  Substitution 121 

8.  Leading  Theories 123 

CHAPTER  V. 

THEORY  OF  MORAL  INFLUENCE. 

I.  Facts  of  the  Theory. 

1.  The  Redemptive  Law 125 

2.  Socinian 126 

3.  Its  Dialectics 126 

4.  Truth  of  Moral  Influence 127 

II.  Its  Kefutation. 

1.  By  the  Fact  of  an  Atonement 129 

2.  By  its  Necessity 131 

3.  By  the  Peculiar  Saving  Work  of  Christ 131 

4.  Not  a  Theory  of  Atonement 132 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THEORY    OF    SATISFACTION. 

I.  Preliminaries. 

1 .  Position  in  Doctrinal  Faith 133 

2.  Formation  of  the  Doctrine 133 

3.  Two  Factors  of  the  Atonement 134 

4.  Concerned  with  the  Penal  Substitution 135 

II.  Elements  of  the  Theory. 

1.  Satisfaction  of  Justice  in  Punishment 135 

2.  Through  Penal  Substitution 136 

3.  Three  Forms  of  the  Substitution 136 

4.  An  Absolute  Substitution 137 

III.  Justice  and  Atonement. 

1.  Their  Intimate  Relation 138 

2.  Distinctions  of  Justice 139 

3.  Punitive  Justice  and  Satisfaction 139 


CONTENTS.  ix 

IV.  Principles  of  the  Theory.  page 

1.  The  Demerit  of  Sin 140 

2.  A  Divine  Punitive  Justice HO 

3.  Sin  Ought  to  be  Punished 141 

4.  Penal  Satisfaction  a  Necessity  of  Justice 14 1 

v.  The  Satisfaction  Impossible  by  Substitution. 

1.  The  Satisfaction  Necessary 143 

2.  The  Substitution  Maintained 144 

3.  No  Answer  to  the  Necessity 145 

4.  No  Such  Answer  Possible 147 

6.  The  Theory  Self -destructive 148 

VI.  Pacts  of  the  Theory  in  Objection. 

1.  The  Punishment  of  Christ 148 

2.  Redeemed  Sinners  Without  Guilt 149 

3.  A  Limited  Atonement 153 

4.  Element  of  Commutative  Justice 163 

CHAPTER  VII. 

GOVERNMKNTAL    THEORY. 

I.  Preliminary  Facts. 

1.  Substitutional  Atonement 155 

2.  Conditional  Substitution 1 56 

3.  Substitution  in  Suffering 1 56 

4.  The  Grotian  Theory 159 

5.  The  Consistent  Arminian  Theory 165 

II.  Public  Justice. 

1.  Relation  of  Public  Justice  to  Atonement 109 

2.  Public  Justice  One  with  Divine  Justice 170 

3.  One  with  Distributive  Justice 170 

4.  Ground  of  its  Penalties 171 

5.  End  of  its  Penalties 172 

6.  Remissibility  of  its  Penalties 175 

7.  Place  for  Atonement 176 

8.  Nature  of  the  Atonement  Determined 176 

III.  Theory  and  Necessity  for  Atonement. 

1.  An  Answer  to  the  Real  Necessity 176 

2.  Grounded  in  the  Deepest  Necessity 177 

3.  Rectoral  Value  of  Penalty 178 

4.  Rectoral  Value  of  Atonement 180 

6.  Only  Sufficient  Atonement 1 83 

6.  True  Sense  of  Satisfaction 184: 

IV.  Theory  and  Scripture  Interpretation. 

1.  Terms  of  Divine  Wrath 184 

2.  Terms  of  Divine  Righteousness 186 

3.  Terms  of  Atonement 186 

4.  Terms  of  Atoning  Suffering 187 


X  CONTENTS. 

V.  Theory  and  Scripture  Facts.  pauk 

1.  Guilt  of  Redeemed  Sinners 19(» 

2.  Forgiveness  in  Justification 192 

3.  Grace  in  Forgiveness 192 

4.  Universality  of  Atonement 19:^ 

5.  Universal  Overture  of  Grace 193 

6.  Doctrinal  Result 194 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

SUFFICIENCT    OF    THE    ATOKEMENT. 

I.  The  Holiness  of  Christ. 

1 .  A  Necessary  Element 195 

2.  Scripture  View 195 

II.  His  Greatness. 

1.  An  Element  of  Atoning  Value 196 

2.  An  Infinite  Value  in  Christ 196 

III.  His  Voluntariness. 

1.  A  Necessary  Fact 196 

2.  Christ  a  Voluntary  Substitute 193 

3.  The  Atoning  Value 197 

IV.  His  Divine  Sonship. 

1.  Sense  of  Atoning  Value 197 

2.  Measure  of  Value ^98 

V.  His  Human  Brotherhood. 

1.  Mediation  must  Express  an  Interest 199 

2.  The  Principle  in  Atonement *  199 

VI.  His  Suffering. 

1.  Extreme  Views 200 

2.  A  Necessary  Element 200 

3.  An  Infinite  Sufficiency 201 

CHAPTER  IX. 

OBJKCTIONS    TO    THE    ATONEMENT. 

I.  An  Irrational  Scheme. 

1.  A  Pretentious  Assumption 203 

2.  Analogies  of  Providence  a  Vindication 203 

II.  A  Violation  of  Justice. 

1 .  No  Infringement  of  Rights 204 

2.  Analogy  of  Vicarious  Suffering 204 

3.  The  Atonement  Clear  of  Injustice 204 

4.  Vantage-ground  against  the  Moral  Theory. .  .    205 

III.  A  Keleasement  from  Duty. 

1 .  Fatal,  if  Valid 205 

2.  Nugatory  against  the  True  Doctrine 206 


CONTENTS.  xi 

IV.  An  Aspersion  of  Divine  Goodness.  page 

1 .  Reason  of  Law  and  Penalty 206 

2.  No  Aspersion  of  Divine  Goodness 207 

3.  Divine  Love  Magnified 207 

CHAPTER  X. 

A    LESSON    FOR    ALL    INTELLIGENCES. 

I.  Kelations  of  the  Atonement. 

1.  A  Salvation  for  Man  Only 208 

2.  Broader  Relation  to  Moral  Beings 208 

8.  A  Practical  Lesson  for  All 209 

II.  A  Lesson  of  Universallnterest. 

1.  Higher  Orders  Interested  in  Redemption 210 

2.  Meaning  of  the  Lordship  of  Christ 211 

3.  Moral  Grandeur  of  the  Atonement 214 

CHAPTER  XL 

UNIVERSALITY    OF    THE    ATONEMENT. 

I.  Determining  Law  of  Extent. 

1.  Intrinsic  Sufficiency  for  All 218 

2.  Divine  Destination  Determinative  of  Extent 219 

3.  The  True  Inquiry 221 

II.  Pleasure  of  the  Father. 

1 .  Question  of  His  Sovereignty 222 

2.  In  One  Relation  to  All 223 

3.  All  in  a  Common  State  of  Evil 223 

4.  Voice  of  the  Divine  Perfections 223 

III.  Pleasure  of  the  Son. 

1.  Application  of  Preceding  Facts 22.5 

2.  Atoning  Work  the  Same 225 

.".  A  Question  of  His  Love 225 

IV.  Scripture  Testimony. 

1.  Proof-texts  for  Limitation 226 

2.  Proof-texts  for  Universality 227 

3.  Redemption  in  Extent  of  the  Evil  of  Sin 228 

4.  Testimony  of  the  Great  Commission 229 

V.  Fallacies  in  Defense  of  Limitation. 

1.  Facts  Admitted .' 232 

2.  Inconsistent  with  the  Divine  Sincerity 232 

3.  Sufficiency  of  Atonement  in  Vindication 232 

4.  True  Sense  of  Sufficiency 233 

5.  Sufficiency  only  with  Divine  Destination 233 

fi.  Limited  in  the  Scheme  of  Satisfaction 234 

7.  Assumption  of  Only  a  Seeming  Inconsistency 237 

8.  Mixed  State  of  Elect  and  Non-elect  238 

9.  Distinction  of  Secret  and  Preceptive  Divine  Will 239 


CONTENTS. 


TEE  SALVATION  IN  CHRIST. 


CHAPTER  I. 

BENEFITS    OF    THE    ATONEMENT. 

I.  Immediate  Benefits.  page 

1.  The  Present  Life 24  .> 

2.  Gracious  Help  for  All   245 

3.  Capacity  for  Probation 24(> 

4.  Infant  Salvation 247 

II.  Conditional  Benefits. 

1.  Meaning  of  Conditional  Benefits 248 

2.  The  Conditionality  of  Salvation 249 

3.  The  Great  Facts  of  Salvation  Severally  Conditional 252 

CHAPTER  II. 

DOCTRINAL    ISSUES. 

I.  Doctrine  of  Predestination. 

1.  Divine  Decrees 254 

2.  Predestination 260 

3.  Election 260 

4.  Reprobation 263 

II.  Other  Points  in  Issue. 

1.  Limitation  of  the  Atonement 266 

2.  Moral  Xecessity 266 

3.  Irresistibility  of  Saving  Grace 267 

4.  Absolute  Final  Perseverance 268 

CHAPTER    III. 

FREE    AGENCY. 

I.  The  Freedom  in  Question. 

1.  Not  the  Freedom  of  Things 271 

2.  Not  the  Freedom  of  External  Action 271 

3.  Not  the  Freedom  of  the  Will 272 

4.  The  True  Question  of  Freedom 273 

5.  Importance  of  the  Question 274 

6.  Theoretical  Forms  of  Necessity 275 

II.  On  the  Domination  of  Motive. 

1.  Choice  as  the  Stronger  Motive 277 

2.  Ascertainment  of  the  Stronger  Motive 278 

3.  Necessity  in  Motive  Domination 278 

4.  A  Law  of  Universal  Necessity 279 

III.  On  Choosing  as  "We  Please. 

1.  As  a  Formula  of  Freedom 280 

2.  A  Nullity  for  Freedom 281 

3.  Consistent  with  Determining  Inclination 281 

4.  Indifferent  whence  or  what  the  Inclination 282 


CONTENTS.  xiii 

IV.  Mental  Facts  of  Choice.  page 

1.  Freedom  of  Choice  a  Question  of  Psychology 283 

2.  Need  of  All  the  Mental  Facts 284 

3.  Deficiency  of  the  Usual  Analysis 284 

4.  The  Facts  in  a  Complete  Analysis 286 

5.  The  Facts  Conclusive  of  Freedom 287 


CHAPTER  IV. 

FREEDOM    OF    CHOICE. 

I.  Rationality  of  Choice. 

1.  Motive  and  Choice 288 

2.  Rational  Character  of  Choice 289 

3.  Rational  Conduct  of  Life 289 

II.  Rational  Suspension  of  Choice. 

1.  Meaning  of  Rational  Suspension 291 

2.  Omissions  of  the  Suspension 291 

3.  Power  of  Suspension  Manifest 292 

4.  Only  Account  of  Noble  Lives 292 

III.  Immediate  Power  of  Suspension. 

1.  Denial  of  the  Power 293 

2.  A  Denial  of  Personal  Agency 294 

3.  Suspension  of  Choice  not  Choice 295 

4.  The  Immediate  Power  Manifest 295 

IV.  Power  over  Motives. 

1.  Motive  States  of  Mind 297 

2.  Laws  of  Motive  States 297 

3.  Power  over  the  Laws  of  Motive  States 298 

4.  Power  over  Motives 301 

V.  Sufficient  Motives  for  Required  Choices. 

1.  Objective  Motives 303 

2.  Rational  Motives 303 

3.  Moral  and  Religious  Motives 303 

4.  Power  of  Commanding  the  Requisite  Motives 304 

5.  True  Freedom  of  Choice 306 


CHAPTER  V. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

The  Nature  of  Justification. 

1.  Terminology  of  the  Subject 309 

2.  Forensic  View  of  Justification 309 

3.  The  Vital  Fact  of  Forgiveness 310 

4.  The  Use  of  Forensic  Terms 311 

5.  A  Change  of  Legal  Status 312 

9  » 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

II.  The  Ground  of  Justification.  page 

1 .  In  Socinianism 313 

2.  In  Romanism 313 

G,  In  Calvinism 314 

4.  In  Arminianism 317 

5.  Justification  Purely  of  Grace 318 

III.  The  Condition  of  Justification. 

1.  Faith  the  One  Condition 318 

2.  The  Imputation  of  Faith  for  Righteousness 319 

3.  Faith  in  Christ  the  Condition 320 

4.  Nature  of  the  Faith 321 

5.  Harmony  of  Paul  and  James 324 

CHAPTER  VI. 

REGENERATION. 

I.  The  Nature  of  Begeneration. 

1.  In  the  Light  of  the  Scriptures 327 

2.  Representative  Terms 329 

3.  Analogical  Interpretation 329 

4.  Deeper  Principle  of  Interpretation 330 

6.  Other  Forms  of  Presentation 331 

6.  The  New  Life 332 

II.  The  "Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

1.  Testimony  of  the  Scriptures 333 

2.  Immediate  Agency  of  the  Spirit 334 

3.  The  Only  Efficient  Agency 334 

III.  Begeneration  and  Sonship. 

1.  Regeneration  the  Ground  of  Sonship 337 

2.  Adoption  and  Sonship 337 

3.  The  Heritage  of  Blessings 338 

CHAPTER  VII. 

ASSURANCE. 

I.  The  Doctrine. 

1.  Meaning  of  Assurance 839 

2.  Truth  of  Assurance 340 

3.  Sources  of  Assurance 341 

II.  "Witness  of  the  Spirit. 

1.  A  Distinct  Witness 342 

2.  A  Direct  Witness 344 

3.  Manner  of  the  Witnessing 347 

III.  "Witness  of  Our  Own  Spirit. 

1.  Nature  of  the  Testimony 348 

2.  Illustrations  of  the  Witnessing 348 

3.  Process  of  the  Witnessing 350 


CONTENTS.  XV 

IV.  The  Assurance  Given.  page 

1.  Subjectively  One 350 

2.  Variable  in  Degree 351 

3.  Thoroughly  Valid 352 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

SANCTIFICATION. 

I.  Meaning  of  Sanctification. 

1.  Ceremonial  Sanctification 355 

2.  Deeper  Moral  Sense 356 

3.  Entire  Sanctification 356 

4.  Two  Spheres  of  the  Sanctification. 357 

II.  Sanctification  of  the  Nature. 

1.  Incomplete  in  Regeneration 357 

2.  Completion  in  Sanctification 362 

3.  Concerning  Sin  in  the  Regenerate 366 

4.  The  Second- Blessing  View 368 

III.  The  Life  in  Holiness. 

1.  Portraiture  of  the  Life 872 

2.  Grades  in  Graces 377 

3.  Law  of  Perfection  in  Graces 377 

4.  The  Assurance  of  Sanctification 379 

5.  Sanctification  a  Common  Privilege 382 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE    CHURCH. 

I.  The  Church  and  Means  of  Grace.  ^ 

1.  Idea  of  the  Church 386 

2.  Duty  of  Church  Membership 388 

3.  Means  of  Grace 389 

4.  The  Sacraments 392 

II.  Christian  Baptism. 

1.  Meaning  of  the  Rite 395 

2.  Mode  of  Administration 396 

3.  The  Subjects  of  Baptism 404 

m.  The  Lord's  Supper. 

1.  Institution  of  the  Supper 411 

2.  Nature  of  the  Supper 411 

3.  Factitious  Sacraments 414 

IV.  Constitution  of  the  Chvirch. 

1 .  Laity  and  Ministry 415 

2.  Divine  Vocation  of  the  Ministry 415 

3.  Ecclesiastical  Polity 416 


CONTENTS. 


PART     VI.— ESCHAXOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

FUTURE    EXISTENCE. 

I.  The  Spirituality  of  Mind.  page 

1 .  Falsity  of  Materialism 423 

2.  Truth  of  Spirituality 425 

3.  The  View  of  Scripture 426 

II.  The  Immortality  of  Mind. 

1.  Spirituality  as  Proof  of  Immortality 42ft 

2.  A  Question  of  the  Divine  Purpose 42 Y 

3.  Evidences  of  the  Divine  Purpose 427 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE    INTERMEDIATE    STATE. 

I.  Question  of  an  Intermediate  Place. 

1 .  In  the  View  of  the  Scriptures 430 

2.  In  the  Faith  of  the  Church 431 

II.  A  State  of  Conscious  Existence. 

1.  The  Common  Christian  Faith 432 

2.  The  Clear  Sense  of  Scripture 432 

3.  Review  of  Objections 434 

III.  Not  a  Probationary  State. 

1.  Significant  Silence  of  Scripture 436 

2.  Clear  Sense  of  Scripture 435 

3.  The  Question  Respecting  the  Heathen 436 

4.  Not  a  Purgatorial  State 438 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE    SECOND    ADTENT. 

I.  Doctrine  of  the  Advent. 

1.  A  Personal,  Visible  Coming  of  Christ 440 

2.  Theory  of  a  Merely  Figurative  Sense 441 

3.  The  Premillennial  Theory 443 

II.  The  Advent  in  the  Light  of  its  Concomitants. 

1 .  The  General  Resurrection 443 

2.  The  Final  Judgment 444 

3.  The  End  of  the  World 445 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    RESURRECTION. 

I.  Doctrine  of  the  Besurrection. 

1 .  The  Sense  of  the  Scriptures 448 

2.  Speculative  Theories .' 452 

3.  The  Resurrection  Body 453 


CONTENTS.  xvii 

II.  Credibility  of  the  Kesurrection.  page 

1.  A  Divinely  Purposed  Futurity 454 

2.  Within  the  Plan  of  Redemption 454 

3.  Apparent  Difficulties  of  the  Doctrine 454 

m.  Oneness  of  the  Resurrection. 

1.  Theories  of  Distinct  Resurrections 45.") 

2.  Proof  of  the  Oneness 456 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE     J  U  n  G  M  K  N  T . 

I.  A  Future  Judgment. 

1.  Explicit  Words  of  Scripture 458 

2.  Judgment  after  the  Resurrection 459 

II.  A  General  Judgment. 

1.  The  Scripture  Proof 459 

2.  Manner  of  the  Judgment 461 

CHAPTER  VI. 

FUTURE    rUNISHMEST. 

I.  Rational  Proofs. 

1.  Reality  of  a  Moral  Governmeut 462 

2.  Under  a  Law  of  Equity 462 

3.  Present  Omissions  of  the  Law 462 

4.  Requirement  of  Future  Punishment 465 

II.  Scripture  Proofs. 

1.  Final  Neglect  of  Salvation 465 

2.  Fact  of  Dying  in  Sin 465 

3.  Future  Happiness  only  for  the  Righteous 466 

4.  Contemporary  Doom  of  the  Wicked 466 

5.  Punishment  at  the  Final  Advent 466 

6.  Resurrection  to  a  Penal  Doom 467 

1.  Final  Judgment  of  Condemnation 467 

III.  Eternity  of  Punishment. 

1.  Recoil  from  the  Doctrine 467 

2.  Fruitless  Endeavor  Toward  a  Rationale 468 

3.  Purely  a  Question  of  Revelation 469 

4.  Obvious  Sense  of  Scripture 469 

CHAPTER  VIL 

FL'TL'KE    BLESSEDNESS. 

I.  Heaven  a  Place. 

1.  Sense  of  Place 472 

2.  Localism  of  Spiritual  Beings 472 

3.  Requirement  of  the  Resurrection 472 

4.  Pervasive  Sense  of  Scripture 473 

5.  Location  of  Heaven 473 


xviii  CONTENTS. 

II.  The  Blessedness  of  Heaven.  page 

1 .  Beauty  of  the  Place 474 

2.  Elements  of  Blessedness 474 


AF'F'ENDICES. 


I. 

INSPIRATION    OF    THK  SCRIPTURES. 

I.  Threefold  Operation  of  the  Spirit. 

1 .  Illumination  of  the  Mediate  Agent 481 

2.  Communication  of  the  Truth 481 

5.  Agency  in  the  Publication 482 

4.  Inspiration  as  the  Requirement 482 

II.  Erroneous  Theories  of  Inspiration. 

1.  Inspiration  of  Genius 48S 

2.  Special  Religious  Consciousness 488 

3.  Illumination  and  Elevation 483 

4.  Divine  Superintendence 48S 

6.  The  Mechanical  Theory 484 

III.  The  Dynamical  Theory. 

1.  Sense  of  the  Theory 486 

2.  Place  for  the  Human  Element 486 

3.  Clear  of  Serious  Difficulty 486 

4.  Sufficient  for  a  Revelation 486 

IV.  Inspiration  and  the  Scriptures. 

1.  Fact  of  Inspiration  from  the  Scriptures 487 

2.  Not  a  Credential  of  the  Sacred  Writers 487 

3.  Verification  of  Inspiration 487 

4.  A  Rationally  Credible  Fact 488 

5.  Value  of  Inspiration 488 

II. 

THE  ANGELS. 

I.  Concerning  the  Angels. 

1.  Realities  of  Existence 490 

2.  Of  a  Spiritual  Nature 491 

3.  With  Personal  Endowments 491 

4.  Grade  of  their  Powers 492 

5.  All  Originally  Holy 492 

II.  The  Good  Angels. 

1.  A  Great  Multitude '. 493 

2.  Ever  Loyal  to  God  and  Duty 493 

3.  In  Social  and  Organic  Compact 498 

4.  Ministry  of  the  Good  Angels 494 


CONTENTS.  xix 

III.  The  Evil  Angels.  tage 

1.  Evil  by  Apostasy 479 

2.  The  Evil  One 497 

3.  Demoniacal  Possession 499 

4.  Work  of  the  Devil  and  his  Angels 502 

5.  Final  Overthrow 504 

III. 

ARMIMAN    TREATMENT    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN. 

I.  The  Question  in  Arminianism. 

1 .  A  Common  Adamic  Sin 505 

2.  A  Common  Justification  in  Christ 612 

3.  Denial  of  Concession  to  Calvinism 515 

II.  The  Issue  with  Calvinism. 

1.  Underlying  Principle  of  the  Issue 517 

2.  Real  Point  of  the  Issue 517 

3.  Arminian  Treatment  of  the  Issue 517 

4.  Doctrinal  Confusion  and  Contradiction 520 

Index 525 


PART  IV. 

CHRISTOLOGY. 


I 


CHRISTOLOOY. 


Christology — Xpiarov  Aoyof — has  Christ  for  its  subject,  and 
might  properly  include  his  divinity  and  subsistence  in  scope  of  the 
the  Trinity;  his  incarnation  and  unique  personality;  his  subject. 
prophetic,  priestly,  and  kingly  offices.  Such  truths  are  central  to 
Christianity,  and  determinative  of  what  it  is  in  itself,  and  in  dis- 
tinction from  other  religions.  Their  inclusion  in  Christology  would 
give  to  it  a  very  wide  scope.  Then,  in  addition  to  the  range  of  its 
own  legitimate  topics,  the  subject  is  greatly  broadened  in  its  doc- 
trinal history.  Few  questions  in  theology  have  been  more  persist- 
ently or  deeply  discussed.  The  fact  is  quite  natural  to  the  intrinsic 
importance  of  the  subject.  Besides,  the  discussion  has  been  inten- 
sified by  the  divergences  of  doctrinal  views  of  the  Christ. 

For  the  present,  however,  we  are  specially  concerned  with  the 
one  question  of  the  person  of  Christ.  This  does  not  thepersonal- 
mean  the  omission  of  other  great  topics  of  Christology.  "y  of  christ. 
T'hey  must  be  included  in  a  system  of  Christian  theology  because 
they  involve  fundamental  truths  of  the  system.  Some  of  them  are 
inseparably  connected  with  the  question  of  the  person  of  Christ, 
but  may  be  more  appropriately  discussed  in  other  parts  of  the  sys- 
tem. The  question  of  personality  is  itself  a  subject  of 
Wide  scope.  It  is  such  m  the  range  of  its  own  topics, 
and  also  in  its  doctrinal  history.  It  is  the  one  question  of  Chris- 
tology which  has  been  most  in  discussion.  Opposing  views  have 
been  maintained;  and  the  issues  thus  raised  have  been  regarded, 
not  as  matters  of  merely  speculative  interest,  but  as  questions  of 
the  profoundest  religious  concern.  The  result  is  that  the  theories 
and  discussions  respecting  the  person  of  Christ  occupy  a  large  place 
in  the  history  of  Christian  doctrine.  Any  one  who  wishes  to  study 
these  discussions  can  readily  find  ample  resources  in  the  literature 
which  they  have  produced,  particularly  in  Corner's  great  work 
on  the  development  of  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  person 
of  Christ.  However,  systematic  theology  is  concerned  with  this 
history  only  so  far  as  it  may  be  helpful  in  reaching  the  true  doc- 
trine. 


h 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 
I.    COKSTRUCTION    OF   THE  DOCTRINE. 

1.  Importance  of  a  True  Doctrine. — The  doctrine  of  the  person 
of  Christ  is  not  a  question  of  mere  speculative  interest, 

RELATION       OF  .      ^  i  T    • 

CHRIST  TO  but  one  that  vitally  concerns  the  central  realities  of 
CHRISTIANITY,  dj^lstianity  itself.  No  other  religion  is  related  to  its 
founder  as  Christianity  is  related  to  Christ.  Buddhism  is  related 
to  Buddha  simply  as  the  original  of  its  doctrines  and  cultus.  They 
derive  no  intrinsic  worth  from  him,  and  would  he  the  very  same  in 
value  if  originated  by  any  other  man.  The  same  is  true  of  Con- 
fucianism and  Mohammedanism,  and  of  every  other  religion  of 
human  origin.  Even  in  the  instance  of  men  divinely  commissioned 
and  inspired  for  the  communication  of  religious  truth  and  the  insti- 
tution of  forms  of  worship,  nothing  in  themselves  gives  intrinsic 
worth  to  either  the  truth  so  communicated  or  the  religious  service 
so  instituted.  So  thoroughly  is  this  true  that,  in  the  providence 
of  God,  other  men  might  have  replaced  Moses  and  Aaron,  David 
and  Isaiah,  Peter  and  Paul,  without  any  intrinsic  change  in  either 
Judaism  or  Christianity.  It  could  not  be  so  respecting  Christ. 
Without  him  Christianity  could  not  be  what  it  is.  No  man  could 
have  taken  his  place.  He  so  wrought  himself  into  Christianity 
that  what  he  is  must  determine  what  it  is.  It  follows  that  the  doc- 
trinal view  of  the  person  of  Christ  must  determine  the  view  of 
Christianity  itself. 

The  history  of  doctrinal  opinions  respecting  the  person  of  Christ 
HISTORY  OF  witnesses  to  the  importance  of  a  true  doctrine.  Indeed, 
THE  DOCTRINE   without  thc  dctalls  of  history  this  importance  is  clearly 

A    WITHESS   TO  %j  x  ^       */ 

ITS  I  MP  OR-  manifest  in  the  inevitable  consequences  of  any  serious 
TANCE.  Qj,  determining  error  of  doctrine.     Hereafter  we  shall 

have  occasion  to  point  out  several  errors  in  Christology  and  to  note 
their  consequences.  For  the  present  it  may  suffice  that  we  place 
the  Socinian  doctrine  in  contrast  with  the  Chalcedonian  or  ortho- 
dox doctrine.  In  the  former  Christ  is  a  mere  man,  a  mere  human 
person.  No  spiritual  or  miraculous  endowments,  not  even  such  as 
the  older  Socinianism  freely  conceded,  could  change  this  fact.     He 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  S 

would  still  be  a  mere  man.  In  the  latter  doctrine  he  is  a  the- 
anthropic  person — truly  God-man.  He  is  the  Son  of  God  incar- 
nate in  our  nature.  In  this  doctrine  there  is  sure  and  sufficient 
ground  for  all  the  great  facts  of  Christian  soteriology:  atonement; 
justification  by  faith;  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  a  new  and 
gracious  spiritual  life.  There  is  no  ground  for  these  great  facts 
in  the  Socinian  Christology.  A  mere  human  Christ  could  not 
make  an  atonement  for  sin.  He  could  not  be  a  Saviour  in  any 
other  mode  than  that  in  which  Peter  and  Paul,  Luther  and  Wes- 
ley, Edwards  and  Asbury,  were  saviours.  So  determining  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  in  Christian  theology.  Without 
his  divinity  and  incarnation,  without  his  theanthropic  personality, 
he  is  another  Christ,  and  Christianity  is  robbed  of  its  divine 
realities  in  the  measure  of  the  change  in  him. 

2.  Early  Need  of  Doctrinal  Construction. — In  Christianity,  even 
from  the  beginning,  Christ  was  the  great  theme  of  the     „  ^     ^  „^ 

O  _    o'  _       ,  °       .  AN  EARLY  SUB- 

Gospel  and  the  life  of  Christian  experience  and  hope,  ject  of  deep 
Therefore  he  could  not  fail  to  be  the  subject  of  much  ^'^^°^- 
thought.  Nor  could  such  thought  limit  itself  to  merely  devotional 
meditations,  but  inevitably  advanced  to  the  study  of  his  true  nat- 
ure or  personality.  For  the  deepest  Christian  consciousness  Christ 
was  the  Saviour  for  whose  sake  all  sin  was  forgiven,  and  in  whose 
fellowship  all  the  rich  blessings  of  the  new  spiritual  life  were  re- 
ceived. For  such  a  consciousness  he  could  not  be  a  mere  man.  It 
is  true  that  in  the  history  of  his  life  he  appeared  in  the  fashion  of 
a  man  and  in  the  possession  of  human  characteristics;  still,  for  the 
Christian  consciousness  he  must  have  been  more  than  man.  But 
how  much  more?  And  wherein  more?  Such  questions  could  not 
fail  to  be  asked;  and  in  the  very  asking  there  was  a  reaching  forth 
of  Christian  thought  for  a  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ.  In 
such  a  mental  movement  the  many  utterances  of  Scripture  which 
ascribe  to  him  a  higher  nature  and  higher  perfections  than  the 
merely  human  would  soon  be  reached.  Here  it  is  that  a  doctrine 
of  the  person  of  Christ  would  begin  to  take  form.  He  is  human, 
and  yet  more  than  human;  is  the  Son  of  God  incarnate  in  the 
nature  of  man;  is  human  and  divine. 

Eeflective  thought  could  not  pause  at  this  stage.  If  Christ  is 
both  divine  and  human  in  his  natures,  how  are  these  the  questions 
natures  related  to  each  other?  What  is  the  influence  discussed. 
of  each  upon  the  other  on  account  of  their  conjunction  or  union  in 
him?  Is  Christ  two  persons  according  to  his  two  natures,  or  one 
person  in  the  union  of  the  two?  Such  questions  were  inevitable. 
Nor  could  they  remain  unanswered.  The  answers  were  given  in  the 
3 


6  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

different  theories  of  the  person  of  Christ  which  appeared  in  the 
earlier  Christian  centuries. 

It  is  not  to  be  thought  strange  that  theories  differed.  The  sub- 
DiFFERENCEs  j^ct  is  ouc  of  thc  profoundcst.  It  lies  in  the  mystery 
OF  DOCTRINE,  of  thc  divlnc  incarnation.  The  divine  Son  invests  him- 
self in  human  nature.  So  far  the  statement  of  the  incarnation  is 
easily  made  ;  but  the  statement  leaves  us  on  the  surface  of  the  pro- 
found reality.  With  a  merely  tactual  or  sympathetic  union  of  the 
two  natures,  and  consequently  two  distinct  persons  in  Christ,  the 
reality  of  the  divine  incarnation  disappears.  With  the  two  distinct 
natures,  and  the  two  classes  of  divine  and  human  facts,  how  can 
he  be  one  person?  Is  the  divine  nature  humanized,  or  the 
human  nature  deified  in  him?  Or  did  the  union  of  the  two 
natures  result  in  a  third  nature  different  from  both,  and  so  provide 
for  the  oneness  of  his  personality?  The  Scriptures  make  no  direct 
answer  to  these  questions.  They  give  us  many  Christological  facts, 
but  in  elementary  form,  and  leave  the  construction  of  a  doctrine  of 
the  person  of  Christ  to  the  resources  of  Christian  thought. 

Soon  various  doctrines  were  set  forth.  In  each  case  the  doctrine 
ERRORS  OP  was  constructed  according  to  what  was  viewed  as  the 
DOCTRINE.  more  vital  or  determining  fact  of  Christology,  as  re- 
lated to  the  person  of  Christ.  Opposing  views  and  errors  of  doc- 
trine were  the  result.  More  or  less  contention  was  inevitable. 
The  interest  of  the  subject  was  too  profound  for  theories  to  be 
held  as  mere  private  opinions,  or  with  indifference  to  opposing 
views.  The  strife  was  a  serious  detriment  to  the  Christian  life. 
Hence  there  was  need  of  a  carefully  constructed  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Christ ;  need  that  the  construction  should  be  the  work 
of  the  best  Christian  thought,  and  that  it  should  be  done  in  a  man- 
ner to  secure  the  highest  moral  sanction  of  the  Church. 

3.  Formula  of  the  Cou7icil  of  Chalcedon. — The  state  of  facts  pre- 
pcRPosE  OF  viously  described  called  for  some  action  of  the  Church 
THE  COUNCIL,  whlch  mlglit  correct  or,  at  least,  mitigate  existing  evils. 
Certainly  there  was  need  that  errors  in  Christology  should  be  cor- 
rected and  contending  parties  reconciled.  A  council  which  should 
embody  the  truest  doctrinal  thought  of  the  Church  seemed  the 
best  agency  for  the  attainment  of  these  ends.  The  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon was  constituted  accordingly,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  451. 

The  Council  of  Nice  was  specially  concerned  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.     The  doctrine  constructed  clearly  and 

■WORK  OF    THE  ''  .  .     .      .  „ 

COUNCIL  OF  strongly  asserted  the  true  and  essential  divinity  of 
NICE.  Christ,  but  expressed  nothing  definitely  respecting  his 

personality.     For  more  than  a  century  this  great  question  still 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  7 

remained  without  doctrinal  formulation  by  any  assembly  properly 
representative  of  the  Church.  The  construction  of  such  a  doctrine 
was  the  special  work  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  The  subject 
was  not  a  new  one.  Much  preparatory  work  had  been  done.  Many 
minds  were  in  possession  of  the  true  doctrine,  which  was  already 
the  prevalent  faith  of  the  Church.  There  was  such  preparation 
for  the  work  of  this  Council.  Indeed,  the  notable  letter  of  Leo, 
Pope  of  Eome,  to  Flavian,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  so  accurately 
and  thoroughly  outlined  a  doctrinal  statement  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  that  little  more  remained  for  the  Council  than  to  cast  the 
material  into  the  mold  of  its  own  thought  and  send  it  forth  under 
the  moral  sanction  of  the  Church. 

Perfection  is  rarely  attained  in  such  work ;  never,  indeed,  on  so 
profound  a  subject.  Yet  the  work  of  this  Council  was  jjo  better  con- 
well  done.  The  Chalcedonian  symbol  combines  the  struction  of 
elements  of  truth  respecting  the  person  of  Christ.  ^^^  doctrine. 
There  is  no  better  construction  of  the  doctrine.  It  is  true  that 
this  symbol  has  not  completely  dominated  the  Christological  thought 
of  the  Church ;  yet  it  has  ever  held  a  position  of  commanding  in- 
fluence, and  has  furnished  the  material  and  the  model  for  the 
Christological  symbols  since  constructed  in  the  orthodox  Churches. 
In  view  of  these  facts  we  here  give  it  entire : 

"We,  then,  following  the  holy  Fathers,  all  with  one  consent, 
teach  men  to  confess  one  and  the  same  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  same  perfect  in  Godhead  and  also  perfect  in  Manhood ;  truly 
God  and  truly  man,  of  a  reasonable  [rational]  soul  and  body ;  con- 
substantial  [co-essential]  with  the  Father  according  to  the  Godhead, 
and  consubstantial  with  us  according  to  the  Manhood;  in  all  things 
like  unto  us,  without  sin ;  begotten  before  all  ages  of  the  Father 
according  to  the  Godhead,  and  in  these  latter  days,  for  us  and 
for  our  salvation,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  mother  of  God, 
according  to  the  Manhood ;  one  and  the  same  Christ,  Son,  Lord, 
only  begotten,  to  be  acknowledged  in  two  natures,  inconfusedly, 
uncliangeably ,  indivisihly ,  inseparably ;  the  distinction  of  natures 
being  by  no  means  taken  away  by  the  union,  but  rather  the  prop- 
erty of  each  nature  being  preserved,  and  concurring  in  one  Person 
and  one  Subsistence,  not  parted  or  divided  into  two  persons, 
but  one  and  the  same  Son,  and  only  begotten,  God  the  Word,  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;  as  the  prophets  from  the  beginning  [have 
declared]  concerning  him,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself 
has  taught  us,  and  the  Creed  of  the  holy  Fathers  has  handed 
down  to  us."' 

'  Schaff  :  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  ii,  pp.  63,  63. 


8  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

It  is  proper  to  note  the  doctrinal  contents  of  this  formula,  so  far 
CONTENTS  OF  ^s  thcj  dlrcctly  concern  the  question  of  the  person  of 
THE  FORMULA.   Qhrist.     Hc  Is  thc  subjcct  of  its  doctrinal  predications. 

Christ,  the  incarnate  Son,  is  truly  and  essentially  divine;  '^per- 
cHRisT  TRULY  fcct  lu  Gfodhcad ; "  "  consubstantial  with  the  Father 
DiTiNE.  according  to  the  Godhead."     In  these  affirmations  there 

is  a  formal  exclusion  of  the  Arian  Christology,  which  denied  the 
essential  divinity  of  Christ. 

The  real  and  complete  humanity  of  Christ  is  definitely  affirmed. 
He  is  "truly  man,  of  a  reasonable  soul  and  body;" 
*' consubstantial  with  us  according  to  the  manhood;  in 
all  things  like  unto  us,  without  sin."  These  affirmations  were 
formally  exclusive  of  two  heresies  in  Christology :  the  Gnostic, 
which  denied  to  Christ  the  possession  of  v  real  body  of  flesh  and 
blood ;  and  the  Apollinarian,  which  denied  to  him  the  possession  of 
a  human  mind. 

The  personal  oneness  of  Christ  in  the  union  of  the  two  natures 
PERSONALLY  18  affirmed  :  "  One  and  the  same  Christ,  Son,  Lord, 
^^^-  only  begotten,  to  be  acknowledged  in  two  natures,  in- 

confusedly,  unchangeably,  indivisibly,  inseparably ;  the  distinction 
of  natures  being  by  no  means  taken  away  by  the  union,  but  rather 
the  property  of  each  nature  being  preserved,  and  concurring  in  one 
person  and  one  subsistence,  not  parted  or  divided  into  two  persons." 
These  doctrinal  predications  excluded  two  heresies  in  Christology  : 
the  Nestorian,  in  which  Christ  was  held  to  be  two  persons,  not  one ; 
and  the  Eutychian,  which  held  the  deification  of  the  human  nature 
in  consequence  of  its  union  with  the  divine  in  the  incarnation ;  so 
that  the  human  nature  became  one  with  the  divine. 

On  this  great  question  the  Athanasian  Creed  is  in  full  accord 
DOCTRINE  OP  ^i^^  ^^®  Chalcedonian  :  ''For  the  right  faith  is  that 
THE  ATHANA-  wc  belicvc  and  confess  :  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
siAN  CREED.      ^^^  g^^  ^^  ^^^^  -^  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^  ,     _  pgrfcct  God, 

and  perfect  man,  of  reasonable  soul  and  human  flesh  subsisting.  .  .  . 
Who,  although  he  be  God  and  man,  yet  he  is  not  two,  but  one  Christ. 
One,  not  by  the  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh,  but  by  taking 
of  the  manhood  into  God:  one  altogether,  not  by  confusion  of  sub- 
stance, but  by  unity  of  person.  For  as  the  reasonable  soul  and 
flesh  is  one  man,  so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ."'  It  is  readily 
seen  that  this  creed  affirms  both  the  divinity  and  humanity  of 
Christ,  and  the  oneness  of  his  personality  in  the  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  him. 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  declared  its  Christological  symbol  to  be 
'  Schaff :  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  ii,  pp.  68,  69. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  9 

final,  and  forbade  the  formation  of  any  other,  under  penalty  of  ex- 
communication. Yet  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  additions  by 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  680,  made  important  Christo-  of*^^constantn 
logical  formulations,  and  joined  them  to  the  Chaleedo-  nople. 
nian  symbol  in  a  manner  which  evinced  the  purpose  of  making  them 
an  integral  part  of  that  symbol. '  These  additions  were  specially 
intended  for  the  correction  or  exclusion  of  monothelitism,  the 
doctrine  of  one  will  in  Christ,  and  to  establish  in  its  stead  the  doc- 
trine of  two  wills  :  a  divine  will,  and  a  human  will.  We  here  have 
the  monothelitic  and  diothelitic  issue — the  question  whether  Christ 
had  one  or  two  wills.  There  is  no  more  difficult  question  in  Chris- 
tology.  It  concerns  the  deepest  mystery  of  the  divine  incarnation. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  a  question  for  much  dogmatism  ;  yet,  naturally 
enough,  both  parties  to  the  issue  were  intensely  dogmatic. 

Monothelitism  could  readily  admit  a  human  will  as  really  present 
in  the  complete  human  nature  assumed  in  the  divine  incarnation; 
but  the  denial  of  its  exercise  in  volitions  distinctively  human  in- 
volved the  very  difficult  task  of  properly  interpreting  many  facts 
in  the  life  of  Christ  which  were  seemingly  of  a  jjurely  human  cast. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  such  human  volitions  are  asserted,  really  nesto- 
the  result  must  be  either  a  Nestorian  or  a  Socinian  ^i^"^- 
Christology.  We  regard  the  Constantinopolitan  additions  to  the 
Chalcedonian  syinbol  as  really  Nestorian,  though  not  so  intended. 
The  existence  of  two  wills  in  Christ  is  strongly  asserted;  and  the 
human  is  viewed,  not  merely  as  an  element  of  the  human  nature 
assumed  in  the  incarnation,  but  as  an  active  agency  in  the  life  of 
Christ.  There  are  two  natural  energies  or  operations — which  must 
mean  the  separate  energizings  of  a  divine  will  and  a  human  will  in 
Christ. 

Nothing  that  follows  respecting  the  union  and  harmony  of  the 
two  wills  in  Christ  can  bring  their  alleged  duality  into  still  nesto- 
consistency  with  the  oneness  of  his  personality.  The  ^^^'*'- 
assertion  respecting  the  complete  submission  of  the  human  will  to 
the  divine  will,  instead  of  eliminating  the  Nestorian  dualism, 
really  concedes  it.''  No  such  obligatory  or  becoming  submission 
can  be  required  of  any  impersonal  thing.  Not  even  the  heavens 
can  be  subject  to  any  such  law  of  courtesy,  propriety,  or  duty.  No 
more  can  a  finite  will  in  its  abstract  self,  or  apart  from  a  finite  per- 
son, be  the  subject  of  any  such  law.  Only  a  person  can  yield  a 
becoming  or  dutiful  submission  to  the  divine  will.     Hence,  in  the 

'  Schaff  :  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  ii,  p.  72. 

^  "  Oportebat  enim  camis  voluntatem  moveri,  subjici  vero  voluntati  divinae, 
juxta  sapientissimum  Athanasium." 

H  ^ 


10  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

assertion  of  such  a  submission  of  the  human  will  to  the  divine 
will  in  Christ,  there  is  an  assumed  personal  dualism  which  can- 
not be  reconciled  with  the  oneness  of  his  personality.  This  is 
really  the  Nestorian  error. 

II.  Elements  of  the  Doctkine. 

1.  The  Divine  Nature  of  Christ. — As  we  found  in  the  divinity 
of  the  Son  a  necessary  element  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  so 
must  we  find  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  a  necessary  element  of 
VITAL  IN  the  doctrine  of  his  personality,  as  it  is  maintained  by 
cHRisTOLOGT.  ^^e  Church.  If  he  does  not  possess  a  divine  nature 
through  the  incarnation  of  the  divine  Son,  there  is  not  in  him  the 
ground  of  a  theanthropic  personality,  and  the  Chalcedonian  Chris- 
tology  must  give  place  to  an  Arian,  Nestorian,  or  Socinian  Chris- 
tology.  So  vital  is  the  question  of  a  divine  nature  in  Christ. 
However,  much  of  this  question  was  anticipated  in  the  discussion 
of  the  divinity  of  the  Son  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  That  discussion  need  not  here  be  repeated;  and  it  will 
meet  all  further  requirement  that  we  set  forth,  in  its  appropriate 
place  and  on  the  grounds  of  Scripture,  the  incarnation  of  the  Son 
in  the  person  of  Christ. 

2.  Tlie  Human  Nature  of  Christ. — The  reality, of  a  human  nat- 
PRESENCE  OF  ^re  VQ.  Clirlst  is  determined  by  the  presence  of  human 
HUMAN  FACTS,  facts  VQ.  hls  Hfc.  This  determination  is  on  a  principle 
which  underlies  science,  and  is  valid  for  the  knowledge  of  things 
in  the  many  spheres  of  science.  In  all  these  spheres  we  know 
things  by  the  presence  of  their  distinctive  qualities.  The  principle 
is  thoroughly  valid  respecting  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  As 
we  know  men  to  be  human,  thoroughly  human,  by  the  presence  of 
human  facts  in  their  lives,  so  by  the  presence  of  such  facts  in  the 
life  of  Christ  we  know  that  he  possessed  a  complete  human  nature. 
We  are  just  as  certain  of  this  in  the  instance  of  Christ  as  in  that 
of  any  eminent  man  of  history.  So  far  we  have  proceeded  on  the 
assumption  of  such  human  facts  in  his  life,  and,  therefore,  must 
now  set  them  forth  as  they  are  given  in  the  Scriptures.  A  sum- 
mary presentation  will  suffice  for  the  present  point. 

It  is  in  the  meaning  of  the  first  promise  of  a  Saviour  that  he 
FACTS  IN  should  be  the  lineal  offspring  of  Eve;'  and  this  means 

POINT.  }jjg  possession  of  a  human  nature.     There  are  various 

Christological  facts  which,  in  form  and  meaning,  are  in  close  ac- 
cordance with  this  first  promise.     Christ  is  the  seed  of  Abraham;  * 

1  Gen.  iii,  15.  «  Gen.  xxii,  18  ;  Acts  iii,  25. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  11 

is  the  offspring  of  David; '  is  made  of  a  woman;  ^  is  born  of  Mary;* 
is  the  Son  of  man. '  All  these  facts  mean  the  reality  of  a  human 
nature  in  Christ.  He  was  born  in  the  manner  of  other  children, 
and,  both  physically  and  mentally,  grew  in  the  manner  of  others: 
"And  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with 
God  and  man."* 

The  great  texts  of  the  divine  incarnation  clearly  contain  the 
truth  of  a  human  nature  in  Christ,  and  can  receive  no  tkxts  of  the 
proper  interpretation  without  it.  Indeed,  the  reality  incarnation. 
of  the  divine  incarnation  is  the  reality  of  a  human  nature  in  Christ. 
A  body  was  prepared  for  the  Son,  that  through  an  incarnation  he 
might  redeem  mankind.*  The  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us.'  The  Son,  who  was  in  the  form  of  God,  was  made  in 
the  likeness  of  man.^  He  assumed  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood  in  the 
likeness  of  our  own.^  However,  as  these  and  other  texts  of  the 
incarnation  must  be  considered  in  the  direct  treatment  of  that  sub- 
ject they  need  no  formal  exposition  here. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  these  texts  make  no  direct  mention  of  a 
human  soul  as  a  part  of  the  nature  assumed  by  the  Son,  a  human  soul 
the  fact  is  admitted;  but  it  is  not  admitted  that  they  ^'"^  christ. 
mean  any  restriction  to  a  mere  physical  nature.  That  in  the  in- 
carnation the  divine  Son  did  assume  a  complete  human  nature,  the 
mind  as  well  as  the  body,  is  manifest  in  many  facts  in  the  life  of 
Christ.  These  facts  are  such  that  they  cannot  be  interpreted  with- 
out the  presence  of  a  human  mind  in  him.  We  recall  the  fact 
of  his  increase  in  wisdom.  This  increase  shows  the  presence  and 
development  of  a  human  mind.  This  is  none  the  less  certain  if  we 
account  his  growing  wisdom  specially  moral  or  spiritual  in  its 
kind.  For  such  a  growth  there  must  be  a  ground  ^^^^  ^^^^^^ 
in  rational  mind.  The  temptations  of  Christ,  both  as  pretation  op 
presented  to  him  and  as  endured  or  repelled  by  him, 
show  the  presence  of  a  human  mind.  We  may  specially  note  the 
temptation  in  the  wilderness.'"  Hunger  is  a  physical  appetite,  and 
may  be  suffered  by  an  animal;  but  only  with  a  rational  mind  can  any 
one  receive  or  repel  such  a  temptation  in  the  manner  of  Christ.  The 
other  temptations,  the  one  to  religious  presumption  and  the  other 
to  ambition,  whether  viewed  in  the  manner  of  their  presentation 
or  in  that  of  their  resistance,  can  have  no  satisfactory  interpretation 
without  the  presence  of  a  human  mind  in  him.  He  has  joy  of 
soul:  ''In  that  hour  Jesus  rejoiced  in  spirit,  and  said,  I  thank 

1  Rev.  xxii,  16.  '  Gal.  iv,  4.  ^  Matt.  1,  21-35.  *  Matt,  xiii,  37. 

=•  Luke  ii,  52.  «  Heb.  x,  5-9.        '  John  i,  14.  «  Phil,  ii,  6,  7. 

9  Heb.  ii,  14.  '» Matt,  iv,  I-IO. 


12  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

thee,  0  Father."  '  Only  with  the  presence  of  a  human  mind  can 
we  find  the  ground  of  a  joy  of  spirib  so  thoroughly  human  in  its 
cast.  Christ  had  sorrow,  many  and  deep  sorrows,  and  such  as  were 
specially  mental  in  their  mode.  It  suffices  that  we  recall  his  deep 
words  on  the  night  of  his  betrayal:  '*  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrow- 
ful, even  unto  death."'  These  words  must  mean  a  human  soul, 
though  his  suffering  was  far  deeper  than  a  mere  human  conscious- 
ness. The  sympathy  of  Christ,  through  a  law  of  common  suffer- 
ing with  us,  as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  is  possible  only  with 
his  possession  of  a  mental  nature  like  our  own.^  The  perfecting  of 
Christ  through  suffering,  that  he  might  accomplish  the  work  of 
our  salvation,  means,  and  must  mean,  his  possession  of  a  human 
soul." 

3.  The  Personal  Oneness  of  Christ. — Oneness  of  personality  is 
DETERMINING  iutriuslc  to  personality  itself.  With  the  presence  of  its 
FACTS.  distinctive  facts,  and  the  absence  of  all  contrary  facts, 

we  are  sure  of  its  reality  and  oneness.  Personality  is  a  most  defi- 
nite form  of  existence.  Its  determinations  thoroughly  differentiate 
it  from  every  other  mode  of  being.  These  determinations  are 
well  known  in  our  observation  of  others  as  well  as  in  our  own  con- 
sciousness. There  is  nothing  of  which  we  are  more  certain  respect- 
ing either  ourselves  or  others.  By  the  presence  of  its  distinctive 
and  determining  facts  in  any  human  life  we  know  the  reality  and 
oneness  of  the  personality  which  they  express.  To  assume  a  du- 
ality of  persons  in  what  is  formally  one  human  life  would  be  to 
assume  two  sets  of  personal  facts  as  really  distinct  as  in  the  instance 
IN  THE  LIFE  OF  of  auy  two  men.  By  the  presence  of  personal  facts  in 
CHRIST.  iiyQ  lifg  of  Christ,  and  the  absence  of  all  facts  expressive 

of  duality,  we  know  the  oneness  of  his  personality  just  as  we  know 
that  of  any  man  of  historic  eminence.  He  appears  among  men  as 
one  person,  talks  and  acts  as  one.  In  his  words  he  often  uses  the 
personal  pronouns  in  application  to  himself,  just  as  he  uses  them  in 
application  to  others.  Thus  I,  mine,  me,  frequently  occur  in  his 
discourses  and  conversations.  Friends  and  foes  address  him  and 
speak  of  him  in  like  manner.  Clearly,  they  fully  recognize  the 
oneness  of  his  personality.  There  is  no  intimation  of  any  thought 
of  a  duality  of  persons  in  Christ. 

Such  are  the  facts  as  given  in  the  Scriptures;  and  they  are  the 
NO  INTIMATION  Kiore  dccisivc  because,  while  the  personal  qualities  as- 
OF  DUALITY,  cribcd  to  Christ  are  often  in  the  utmost  contrast,  there 
is  no  intimation  of  any  personal  duality.     Some  have  a  purely  human 

>  Luke  X,  21.  s  Matt,  xxvi,  38. 

3Heb.  ii,  17,  18;  iv,  15.  "Heb.  ii,  9,  10. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  13 

cast,  while  others  have  the  perfection  of  divine  attributes.  He  is 
at  once  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  man;  a  newly  born  child 
and  the  everlasting  Father;  before  all  things  and  yet  of  human 
lineage;  upholder  of  all  things  and  yet  daily  subsisting  in  the 
manner  of  men.  If  the  Scriptures  mean  any  duality  of  persons  in 
Christ,  surely  that  distinction  would  be  made,  or  at  least  recognized, 
in  ascribing  to  him  personal  facts  so  widely  different.  There  is  no 
such  recognition.  Hence  his  personal  oneness  must  be  a  truth  of 
the  Scriptures. 

We  may  easily  verify  and  illustrate  the  above  statements  by  ref- 
erence to  a  few  appropriate  texts.     The  Messiah  is  at 

PERSONALLY 

once  a  child  born,  a  son  given,  and  truly  God — The  one  in  two 
Mighty  God,  The  Everlasting  Father,  The  Prince  of  ^^™«^s. 
Peace.'  The  child  of  Mary  is  Emmanuel,  God  with  us.''  Christ 
is  both  the  Son  and  Lord  of  David — Son  in  the  sense  of  a  human 
lineage.  Lord  in  the  sense  of  divinity.^  Wearied  by  his  journey, 
Jesus  sat  and  rested  on  the  well  of  Jacob,  and  asked  a  drink  of  wa- 
ter of  the  woman  of  Samaria.  Then,  in  further  conversation,  he 
assured  her  that  he  could  give  her  to  drink  of  the  water  of  life,  and 
that  whosoever  drank  of  this  water  should  never  thirst,  but  possess 
the  fountain  of  everlasting  life.'  Herein  the  person  who  sat  by 
the  well  as  a  weary  man  asserted  for  himself  the  resources  of  divin- 
ity. The  same  personal  Christ  is  of  Jewish  lineage,  as  concerning 
his  flesh,  and  over  all,  God  blessed  forever.^  We  have  given  the 
substance  of  a  few  texts  out  of  many.  They  all  concur  in  ascribing 
to  Christ  both  human  and  divine  attributes,  and  yet  without  any 
distinction  as  to  his  personality.     That  is  ever  one. 

'  Isa.  ix,  6.  '  Matt,  i,  23.  3j!,|[att.  xxii,  43-45. 

^  John  iv,  6-14.  '  Eom.  ix,  5. 


14  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY- 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE    DIVINE   INCARNATION. 
I.    DOCTRIXE    OF   THE   INCARNATION. 

1.  Ground  of  the  Persoti  of  Christ. — When  we  speak  of  the  per- 
sonality of  Christ  we  have  in  view,  not  that  of  the  unincarnate 
Son,  nor  that  of  a  man  simply,  but  the  unique  personality  which 
arises  from  a  union  of  the  divine  nature  with  the  human.     Only  in 

this  union  could  there  be  such  a  person  as  Christ.     He 

AS  GOD-MAN.  .        ^      ,.,.-,.     .  ,  -,  •I'T. 

is  God  m  his  divme  nature  and  man  m  his  human 
nature,  but  in  personality  he  is  the  God-man.  Hence  the  incarna- 
tion of  divinity  in  humanity  is  the  necessary  ground  of  such  a  per- 
sonality. The  necessary  union  of  the  two  natures  is  possible  only 
in  the  mode  of  a  divine  incarnation.  The  divine  nature  is  eternal, 
while  the  human  originated  in  time.  The  divine  was  therefore 
eternally  before  the  human.  Hence  the  union  of  the  two  in  the 
person  of  Christ  must  have  been  an  event  in  time.  The  divine  Son 
did  incarnate  himself  in  human  nature,  or  did  take  the  nature  of 
man  into  personal  union  with  himself;  and  this  union  is  the  ground 
of  the  unique  personality  of  Christ. 

2.  The  Incarnation  a  Truth  of  Scripture. — A  few  appropriate 
texts  will  suffice  for  the  setting  forth  of  this  truth.  Those  that  we 
shall  use  are  more  or  less  familiar  to  students  of  theology,  and, 
therefore,  need  not  be  formally  cited. 

We  begin  with  the  words  of  St.  John.'  The  Word  was  in  the 
DOCTRINE  OF  beginning,  was  with  God,  and  was  God,  by  whom  all 
ST.  JOHN.  things  were  made.  The  Word  must  be  a  personal  being, 
for  only  a  personal  being  can  be  the  subject  of  such  predications. 
Also,  he  must  be  a  divine  being.  The  predications  are  as  conclu- 
sive of  divinity  as  of  personality.  He  who  was  in  the  beginning, 
and  the  creator  of  all  things,  must  possess  the  attributes  of  omnis- 
cience and  omnipotence,  and,  therefore,  must  be  God.  Accord- 
ingly, the  text  declares  that  the  Word  was  God.  Then,  in  the 
fourteenth  verse,  it  is  declared  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us — made  flesh,  not  by  transmutation  of  his  nature 
into  a  body  of  flesh,  but  by  the  incarnation  of  himself  in  the  nature 

'  John  i,  1-3,  14. 


THE  DIVINE  INCARNATION.  15 

of  man.  The  words  "  and  dwelt  among  us  "  forcibly  mean  such  an 
incarnation.  Then  this  same  verse  clearly  identifies  the  Word  with 
the  Son  of  God:  "  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among 
us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth." 

We  have  a  great  Christological  text  from  St.  Paul.'  Three  facts 
are  specially  noted:  Christ  in  the  form  of  God;  Christ  doctrink  of 
in  equality  with  God;  Christ  in  the  likeness  of  men.  st.  paul 
These  facts  contain  the  truth  of  a  divine  incarnation.  ''Who, 
being  in  the  form  of  God  " — bq  hv  jitop0^  Qeov  vnapx^^-  Mostly, 
these  words  have  been  interpreted  to  mean  an  existence  in  the 
nature  of  God.  Such  a  sense  of  fJ-oQcpy  is  fully  warranted  by  its  use; 
and  such  must  be  its  meaning  here;  or,  at  least,  the  words  together 
must  mean  an  existence  in  possession  of  the  divine  perfections. 
Such,  for  the  most  part,  has  been  their  interpretation  since  the 
time  when  the  great  questions  of  Christology  first  came  into  formal 
discussion.  They  are  still  so  interpreted  by  some  of  the  ablest  ex- 
positors. '' Though  juop^;)  is  not  the  same  as  (pvoig  or  view  of 
ovoia,  yet  the  possession  of  the  [toQ(l)ri  involves  participa-  lightfoot. 
tion  in  the  ovoia  also;  for  f^opcp?)  implies  not  the  external  accidents, 
but  the  essential  attributes. "  * 

Only  with  such  a  sense  of  iioQ(pf] — form — can  the  several  parts  of 
the  text  be  brought  into  harmony.  The  pre-existence  harmony  of 
of  Christ  in  the  form  of  God  is  clearly  the  ground  of  his  '^"^  facts. 
rightful  claim  to  an  equality  with  God — to  elvai  loa  QeQ.  Wherein 
equal?  Not  in  divine  perfection,  for  that  would  identify  the  object 
of  his  claim  with  its  ground;  but  equal  in  estate,  in  the  glory  which 
he  had  with  the  Father.  Only  the  possession  of  divine  perfection 
could  be  the  ground  of  a  rightful  claim  to  such  an  equality  with 
God.  Thus  these  two  facts  come  into  harmony,  and  each  inter- 
prets the  other.  With  these  facts  in  possession,  other  facts  of  the 
text  are  easily  interpreted.  The  equality  of  estate  with  God  and 
the  form  of  a  servant  in  the  likeness  of  men  appear  in  their  proper 
antithesis,  while  the  Son  freely  surrenders  the  former  and  accepts 
the  latter  instead.  "  Being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men  "  and 
"  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man  "  can  mean  nothing  less  or  other 
than  the  assumption  and  possession  of  a  human  nature.  Thus  we 
have  the  truth  of  a  divine  incarnation. 

In  another    passage   St.    Paul   clearly  gives   the   same   truth.^ 
Here   the  facts  are  presented   in  an  order  reverse  to  another  text 
that  observed  in  the  texts  already  noticed,  but  none  the  °^  ^'^-  ^^'^'" 
less  definitely  on  that  account.     The  subject  of  the  text  is  the  Son, 

'  Phil,  ii,  6-8.  '  Lightfoot :  Philippians,  in  loc.  '  Col.  i,  13-17. 


16  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

"in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood/'  The  blood 
means  the  Son's  possession  of  a  body  like  our  own.  Then  the  facts 
which  follow  in  the  same  text  are  conclusive  of  his  true  and  essential 
divinity.  This  was  shown  before  in  treating  the  works  of  the  Son 
as  the  proof  of  his  divinity.  No  text  in  the  Scriptures  more 
clearly  or  surely  expresses  the  work  of  a  divine  creation  :  "  For  by 
him — the  Son  through  whose  blood  we  have  redemption — were  all 
things  created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible 
and  invisible,  whether  thrones  or  dominions,  principalities  or 
powers  :  all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him :  and  he 
is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist."  The  divine 
Son,  thus  proved  to  be  truly  and  essentially  divine,  must  have 
incarnated  himself  in  our  nature  before  he  could  redeem  us  with 
his  blood. 

*' God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh."'  This  is  the  explicit  truth 
A  THIRD  TEXT  0^  ^^6  divluo  incamatiou.  No  reason  of  doubt  whether 
OF  ST.  PAUL.  Q^^g  belongs  to  the  original  text  can  affect  its  mean- 
ing respecting  the  incarnation.  It  is  the  divine  Son  who  was  man- 
ifest in  the  flesh.  This  is  determined  by  the  facts  which  immedi- 
ately follow  :  "  Justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached 
unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into  glory." 
The  truth  of  the  divinity  of  the  Son  is  in  no  sense  dependent  upon 
the  genuineness  of  deog  in  this  text.  His  divinity  has  the  most 
thorough  proof  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  text  now  in  hand  clearly 
and  definitely  asserts  his  incarnation. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  replete  with  Christological  facts. 
EPISTLE  TO  THE  Amoug  thcsc  Is  thc  iucamation  of  thc  divluc  Sou.  ''For- 
HEBREws.  asmuch  then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and 
blood,  he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same."  ^  This  text 
is  central  to  others  which  fully  determine  its  meaning.  The  divin- 
ity of  the  Son  is  clearly  given  in  the  first  chapter  of  this  epistle. 
He  is  the  maker  of  worlds  and  the  upholder  of  all  things  by  the 
word  of  his  power.  He  is  Lord  of  the  angels  and  the  object  of 
their  supreme  worship.  In  the  beginning  he  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  earth  and  framed  the  heavens  ;  and  while  they  shall  wax  old 
and  perish  he  is  the  same,  and  his  years  fail  not.^  This  is  the 
divine  Son  who  incarnated  himself  in  the  nature  of  man.  Therein 
he  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels,  that  through  death  he 
might  redeem  mankind.  Thus  he  entered  into  brotherhood  with 
men  in  the  assumption  of  their  nature,  that  by  his  own  death 
he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the 
devil,  and  deliver  them,  who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their 
'  1  Tim.  iii,  16.  «  Heb.  ii,  14.  '  Heb.  i,  3,  3,  6,  10-13. 


THE  DIVINE  INCARNATION,  17 

life-time  subject  to  bondage/     This  is  the  truth  of  a  divine  in- 
carnation. 

3.  Incarnation  of  the  Personal  Son. — The  full  truth  of  the  in- 
carnation is  not  contained  in  the  notion  of  a  union  of  the  divine 
nature,  simply  as  such,  with  the  human  nature.     The 

,    .  J,      S      .  .  DEEPER  TRDTH 

subject  of  the  incarnation  was  not  a  mere  nature,  but  a  of  the  incar- 
person — the  personal  Son.  The  divine  nature  is  com-  ^'^''''^'^• 
mon  to  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  ;  therefore  any  limitation  of  the 
incarnation  to  the  divine  nature  would  deny  to  the  Son  any  distinct 
or  peculiar  part  therein.  This  would  contradict  the  most  open  and 
uniform  sense  of  Scripture.  The  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  had 
no  such  part  in  the  incarnation  as  the  Son.  Nor  could  any  union 
of  the  divine  nature,  simply  as  such,  with  the  human  nature  give 
the  profound  truth  and  reality  of  the  incarnation.  It  could  mean 
nothing  for  the  unique  personality  of  the  Christ ;  nothing  for  the 
reality  and  sufficiency  of  the  atonement. 

The  Scriptures  are  most  explicit  respecting  the  incarnation  of 
the  personal  Son.  We  have  already  seen  this  in  the  the  script- 
great  texts  of  the  incarnation,  and  it  may  suffice  for  uk*^s  explicit. 
the  present  point  that  we  recall  a  part  of  them.  In  the  statement 
of  the  first  text  it  was  the  Word  that  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us ;  but  in  the  same  text  the  Word  is  identified  with  the 
divine  Son."  In  the  next  it  is  the  Son  through  whose  blood  we 
have  redemption  and  remission  of  sins,  the  Son  who  created  all 
things.'  This  must  mean  the  incarnation  of  the  personal  Son. 
This  same  truth  is  clearly  given  in  the  texts  of  the  incarnation, 
which  we  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Again,  it  is  the 
Son  who  created  all  worlds,  who  is  Lord  of  the  angels  and  the  object 
of  their  supreme  worship,  that  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  an- 
gels by  an  incarnation  in  which  he  assumed  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood.* 

We  have  specially  noted  this  fact  of  the  incarnation  for  the  rea- 
son of  its  relation  to  the  person  of  the  Christ.     There     „  ^      „  „ 

■T^    _    ,  ,  AS  related  to 

is  an  intimate,  even  a  determining  relation  of  the  one  to  the  person  of 
the  other.  Christ  could  not  be  a  wholly  new  personality,  ^'^^'^^• 
because  the  personality  of  the  Son  could  not  be  suspended  or  neu- 
tralized by  the  incarnation.  His  true  and  essential  divinity  forbids 
the  notion  of  any  such  result.  The  personality  of  the  Son,  as  veri- 
fied to  himself  in  the  facts  of  his  own  consciousness,  must  forever 
abide.  The  immutability  of  the  Son  in  his  essential  being  and  in 
his  personal  attributes  affirms  this  truth.  Therein  lies  the  ground 
of  the  immutability  of  Christ :  *'  Jesus  Christ  the  same  yesterday, 

'  Heb.  ii,  9,  11,  14,  15.  "^  John  i,  14. 

3  Col.  i,  13-16.  ^  Heb.  i,  ii. 


18  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

and  to-day,  and  forever.'"  With  all  his  mutations  of  estate,  he  ia 
eternally  the  same,  because  he  is  the  incarnate  Son.  The  personal- 
ity of  the  Son  must  forever  abide. 

What,  then,  is  the  result  of  the  incarnation  in  the  personality  of 
the  Son  ?     Not  a  new  personality,  but  a  modified  per- 
coNscious-    sonality — modified  by  the  possession  of  new  facts   of 
^"^^^^  consciousness.     The  reality  of  the  incarnation  will  not 

allow  us  to  stop  short  of  this  result.  We  here  face  a  profound  ques- 
tion, but  shall  find  a  more  appropriate  place  for  its  discussion.  Any 
question  which  involves  the  reality  of  the  incarnation  must  be  pro- 
found. Respecting  these  new  facts  of  consciousness  many  questions 
of  difficulty  and  doubt  might  readily  be  asked.  How  could  the 
divine  Son  come  into  the  possession  of  new  facts  of  consciousness? 
No  definite  answer  may  be  given  as  to  the  mode,  but  surely  the 
possibility  lies  in  the  fact  that  he  is  a  person,  with  the  ceaseless 
exercise  of  a  personal  agency.  What  are  the  new  facts  of  conscious- 
ness? Such  as  came  to  him  through  the  human  nature  assumed  in 
the  incarnation.  What  could  the  incarnation  mean,  or  what  could 
be  its  reality,  without  such  result?  Not  else  could  there  be  a  union 
of  the  two  natures  in  a  personal  oneness  ;  not  else  the  unique  per- 
sonality of  the  Christ ;  not  else  the  God-man. 

II.  The  Two  Natures  in  Personal  Oneness. 

1.  The  Result  of  the  Incarnation. — The  reality  of  the  incarna- 
THE  DECISIVE  tlou  determines  the  personal  oneness  of  the  Christ  in 
FACTS.  the  union  of  the  two  natures.     We  already  have  the 

facts  which  verify  this  statement.  They  came  into  our  possession 
while  discussing  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  more 
fully  in  the  treatment  of  the  incarnation.  The  divine  Son  did  not 
place  himself  in  a  merely  tactual  or  sympathetic  union  with  a 
human  person,  even  though  it  were  the  closest  possible  to  the  mode, 
but  so  united  our  nature  with  himself  as  to  share  our  experiences. 
The  Christ  is  the  Son  incarnate.  He  is  one  person,  but  in  posses- 
sion of  both  divine  and  human  attributes.  The  divine  nature  is 
the  necessary  ground  of  the  former ;  the  human,  the  necessary 
ground  of  the  latter.  Therefore  while  he  is  personally  one 
he  must  possess  both  natures  in  a  personal  oneness.  This  is  the 
meaning  and  the  result  of  the  incarnation.  Only  with  such  a  re- 
sult can  it  be  a  reality — such  a  reality  as  will  interpret  the  Script- 
ures, or  meet  the  necessity  for  an  atonement,  or  satisfy  the  deep- 
est religious  consciousness. 

3.  Tlie  Catholic  Doctrine. — That  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in 

'  Heb.  xiii,  8. 


THE  DIVINE  INCARNATION.  19 

the  personal  oneness  of  Christ  is,  in  the  proper  sense  of  catholic, 
the  catholic  doctrine,  is  so  surely  and  openly  true  that  it  needs  no 
elaborate  treatment.  The  doctrine  is  embodied  in  the  creeds  of 
the  Churches.  Exceptions  are  too  rare  to  discredit  or  render  inac- 
curate the  general  statement.  Even  its  omission  from  a  creed  may 
not  mean  its  omission  in  the  faith  of  the  Church  which  formulates 
such  creed.  The  creeds  of  some  Churches  are  very  brief,  and  deal 
but  little  with  formulations  of  doctrine.  In  such  instances  the 
omitted  doctrine  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  personal 
oneness  of  Christ  may  hold  its  place  as  firmly  in  the  faith  of  the 
Church  as  other  fundamental  doctrines  likewise  omitted. 

This  doctrine  is  in  the  ecumenical  creeds,  and  by  their  accept- 
ance has  become  the  catholic  doctrine.  It  is  true  that  in  the  ecumek- 
this  doctrine  was  not  definitely  formulated  in  the  Nicene  ^^^^  creeds. 
Creed,  but  the  ground  of  it  was  therein  laid,  and  so  far  it  became  the 
faith  of  the  Church.  It  is  also  true  that  the  Athanasian  Creed  was 
not  formally  ecumenical,  but  the  consensus  of  the  Church  soon  gave 
it  ecumenical  character,  and  thus  determined  the  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ,  so  definitely  formulated 
in  this  creed,  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  universal.  There 
follows  the  Chalcedonian  symbol,  formulated  by  an  ecumenical  coun- 
cil convened  for  the  definite  purpose  of  constructing  a  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Christ.  Nothing  in  this  doctrine  is  more  definitely  for- 
mulated than  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  his  personal  oneness. 
This  was  then  the  creed  of  the  whole  Church.  Since  the  division 
into  the  Greek  and  Roman  it  has  been  in  common  the  creed  of  both. 

It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Churches:  of  the  Lutheran; 
of  the  Reformed;  of  the  Churches  which  hold  substan-     jntheprot- 
tially  the  Westminster  Confession;  of   the  Church  of     est  ant 
England;  of   the  Methodist  Churches,  and  of  others     ^'''^'^''^• 
here  omitted.     It  is  thus  manifestly  true  that  the  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ  is  the  catholic  doctrine. 

3.  Mystery  of  the  Doctrine. — We  reach  the  profoundest  mystery 
of  the  incarnation  in  the  personal  oneness  of  the  divine-human 
Christ.  It  is,  if  possibly  so,  a  profounder  mystery  than  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity.  The  notion  of  three  personal  subsistences  in 
one  nature  seems  less  remote  from  the  grasp  of  thought  than  a  unity 
of  personality  in  the  union  of  two  natures,  each  of  which  is  nor- 
mally a  person.  Personality  itself  is  a  profound  mys-  personality 
tery.  How  obscure  the  notion  of  an  unbodied  spirit  ^  mystery. 
endowed  with  personal  faculties  and  active  in  modes  of  personal 
agency!  Nor  do  we  attain  to  any  clearness  of  view  in  the  instance  of 
personal  mind  enshrined  in  a  physical  organism.  Indeed,  it  is  difficult 


20  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

to  say  in  which  case  lies  the  deeper  mystery.  Even  our  own  e'xperi- 
ence  in  the  embodied  mode  of  life  clears  no  obscurity.  That  we  thus 
exist  and  personally  act  we  know,  but  below  these  facts  all  is  mystery. 
Surely,  then,  it  is  not  for  us  to  grasp  in  thought  the  personality  of 
the  Christ  in  the  union  of-  a  human  nature  with  the  divine. 

The  constitution  of  our  own  personality  in  the  union  of  two  dis- 
A  FRUITLESS  tiuct  naturcs,  the  mental  and  the  physical,  has  been  in 
ILLUSTRATION,  fpequcut  use  for  the  illustration  of  the  person  of  Christ. 
Any  helpful  illustration  would  be  accepted  readily,  but  we  can  find 
no  help  in  the  one  here  offered.  The  want  of  analogy  wholly  voids 
the  illustration.  In  order  to  secure  any  ground  of  analogy  our 
mental  and  physical  natures  must  be  combined  in  the  basis  of  our 
personality.  This  is  attempted,  but  certainly  without  attainment. 
In  man  the  seat  of  personality  is  wholly  in  the  mind,  and  there  is 
no  ground  for  two  personalities  in  his  constituent  natures.  No  at- 
tribute of  personality  belongs  to  the  body.  The  mind  is  the  whole 
personal  self,  and  if  disembodied  would  still  possess  its  personality. 
For  the  present  life  the  body  determines  some  modes  of  its  personal 
agency  and  some  facts  of  its  consciousness,  but  has  no  part  in  its 
personal  constitution  nor  place  in  its  ground.  But  the  human 
nature  assumed  by  the  divine  Son  in  the  person  of  Christ  not  only 
may  be  a  person,  but  normally  is  a  person.  The  depth  of  mystery 
lies  in  the  union  of  two  such  natures  in  the  unity  of  personality. 
For  the  illustration  of  such  a  personality  there  is  no  analogy  in 
the  constitution  of  our  own.  The  mystery  deepens  in  the  fact 
that  in  his  personality  the  finite  blends  with  the  infinite.  In  his 
consciousness  there  is  a  mingling  of  human  forms  of  experience 
^r.^  »«.„a«x,  rv»  with  forms  of  the  divine  consciousness.  The  person  of 
CHRIST  A  MYs-  ChHst  Is  a  mystery  of  Christian  truth  without  solution 
TERY.  ^^  ^^j.  pg^gQQ^     j|.  jg  proper  here  to  recall  the  profound 

difference,  previously  pointed  out,  between  a  mystery  and  a  contra- 
diction. There  is  nothing  in  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ 
which  contradicts  our  reason.  The  world  is  full  of  mysteries,  but 
mystery  is  not  the  limit  of  assured  truth.  On  the  ground  of  Script- 
ure the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  as  previously  set  forth,  is 
true,  and  on  that  ground  we  hold  it  in  a  sure  faith. 

Two  facts  are  offered  in  aid  of  our  thought.  If  not  of  any  serv- 
ice for  the  solution  of  this  mystery  they  may  be  helpful  toward  a 
true  notion  of  the  person  of  Christ. 

One  fact  is  that  it  was  a  form  of  human  nature,  simply  as  such, 
ONLY  OUR  NAT-  ^ud  uot  lu  pcrsoual  development,  that  the  Logos  as- 
CRE  ASSUMED,  gumcd  iu  thc  incarnation.  While  it  is  conceded  that 
the  assumption  of  a  human  nature  in  its  personal  form  would  have 


THE  DIVINE  INCARNATION.  21 

resulted  in  a  duality  of  persons  in  Christ,  it  is  claimed  that  by  the 
assumption  of  a  human  nature  as  yet  impersonal  such  a  conse- 
quence is  avoided.  "  If  the  Son  of  God  had  taken  to  himself  a 
man  now  made  and  already  perfected,  it  would  of  necessiiiy  follow 
that  there  are  in  Christ  two  persons,  the  one  assuming  and  the 
other  assumed;  whereas  the  Son  of  God  did  not  assume  a  man's 
person  into  his  own,  but  a  man's  nature  to  his  own  person,  .  .  . 
the  very  first  original  element  of  our  nature,  before  it  was  come  to 
have  any  personal  human  subsistence.  ...  By  taking  only  the 
nature  of  man  he  still  continueth  one  person,  and  change th  but  the 
manner  of  his  subsisting,  which  was  before  in  the  mere  glory  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  is  now  in  the  habit  of  our  flesh." ' 

Of  course,  the  fact  here  given  as  securing  the  oneness  of  person- 
ality in  Christ  requires  that  the  assumed  human  nature  should 
in  itself  ever  remain  in  an  impersonal  form;  for  any  subsequent 
change  into  a  personal  mode  would  have  the  same  consequence  of 
personal  duality  as  an  original  incarnation  of  the  Son  in  a  human 
person.     Yet  this  notion  of  a  mere  human  nature  must 

^  THE        NATURE 

not  be  carried  too  far,  nor  held  too  rigidly,  else  the  must  be  act- 
nature  itself  will  not  account  for  the  human  facts  in  the  "^^ 
life  of  Christ.  We  know  nothing  of  the  mode  of  connection  be- 
tween a  mental  nature  and  a  physical  organism,  whereby  the  physi- 
cal determines  the  cast  of  many  facts  of  experience  in  the  mental. 
No  more  can  we  know  the  mode  in  which  the  spiritual  nature  of 
man  must  be  related  to  the  incarnate  Logos  so  as  to  constitute  in 
him  the  ground  of  experiences  like  our  own.  Yet  it  seems  mani- 
fest that  there  can  be  no  such  ground  without  the  activity  of  the 
mental  nature  assumed  with  the  physical  nature  in  the  incarnation. 
This  must  be  the  case  in  respect  to  such  experiences  as  have  a  spe- 
cially mental  cast.  While,  therefore,  we  may  deny  to  the  human 
nature  assumed  in  the  incarnation  a  distinct  personal  subsistence  in 
Christ,  we  must  still  allow  it  such  forms  of  activity  as  will  account 
for  the  human  facts  of  his  incarnate  life. 

The  other  fact  is  that  the  ground  of  the  personality  of  Christ  is 
in  his  divine  nature,  not  in  his  human  nature.  There  grounrofthe 
is  here  such  a  distinction  between  nature  and  person  as  personality. 
we  find  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  formulated  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice.  While  we  cannot  think  of  the  divine  nature  as  ever 
actually  in  an  impersonal  state,  we  can  so  think  of  a  human  nature. 
Indeed,  the  nature  of  every  man  exists  in  an  impersonal  mode  be- 
fore it  attains  to  personality.  In  this  case,  however,  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding one,  it  must  be  assumed  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ 

'  Hooker  :  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  v,  §  53. 

> 
4 


22  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

remains  without  personality  in  itself.  But  in  this  case,  as  in  that, 
it  must  not  be  assumed  that  the  human  nature  remains  inactive  or 
without  effect  in  the  consciousness  of  Christ.  Such  an  assumption 
would  deny  the  reality  of  the  divine  incarnation.  While  it  is  true 
that  our  own  mind  has  the  ground  of  its  personality  entirely  in  it- 
self, yet  its  enshrinement  in  a  physical  organism  has  much  to  do 
with  its  consciousness.  So  the  impersonal  human  nature  assumed 
in  the  incarnation  may  determine  many  facts  in  the  consciousness 
of  Christ.  Thus  arises  his  theanthropic  personality.  In  the  con- 
sciousness of  both  divine  and  human  facts  he  is  the  Grod-man.  The 
new  facts  of  consciousness  are  entirely  consistent  with  the  unity  of 
his  personality — just  as  the  experiences  which  come  to  the  human 
personality  through  the  bodily  organism  are  entirely  consistent 
with  its  unity. 


CHRIST  IS  THEANTHROPIC.  23 


CHAPTER  III. 

CHRIST  IS  THEANTHROPIC. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  Christ  is  God,  and  a  sense  in  which  he 
is  man;  but  there  is  a  deeper  sense  in  which  he  is  God-man.  His 
theanthropic  character  is  determined  by  the  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures  in  his  personality.  That  he  is  truly  thean- 
thropic is  clearly  a  truth  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  the  key  to  the 
many  Christological  paradoxes  which  they  contain. 

I.  Theai^thropic  in^  Persoi^^ality. 

1.  Permanent  Duality  of  His  Natures. — It  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  as  definitely  formulated  in  the  Chalcedonian  symbol,  that 
the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  is  forever  an  inseparable  one. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  present  question.  The  point  we  here 
make  is  that  the  natures  suffer  no  change  in  consequence  of  their 
union  in  Christ.  This  also  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and,  as 
we  have  already  shown,  is  very  fully  and  definitely  expressed  in  the 
same  Christological  symbol.  There  is  neither  change  nor  mixture 
of  the  natures.  The  divine  is  not  transmuted  into  the  human;  the 
human  is  not  transmuted  into  the  divine.  There  is  no  mixing  of 
the  natures,  with  a  resultant  third  nature,  or  indefinable  tertium 
quid — something  neither  human  nor  divine. 

Christological  speculation  has  not  been  entirely  without  the  no- 
tion of  such  results  of  the  divine  incarnation.  We  may  a  contrary 
instance  the  monophysitic  or  Eutychian  heresy,  accord-  ^'^^• 
ing  to  which  the  human  nature  was  so  changed  by  its  union  with 
the  divine  nature  that  it  ceased  to  be  human  and  really  became 
divine.  It  would  follow  that  there  was  but  one  nature  in  Christ. 
This  is  one  of  the  errors  which  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  so  for- 
mally excluded  from  the  doctrine  which  it  formulated.  Without  a 
personal  union  of  the  two  unchanged  natures  in  Christ  the  facts 
which  appear  in  his  life  must  remain  without  any  satisfactory 
interpretation.  There  is  in  his  life  a  mingling  of  human  and  di- 
vine facts.  The  human  can  have  no  ground  in  a  purely  diviue 
nature;  the  divine,  no  ground  in  a  purely  human  nature.  The 
presence  of  two  classes  of  facts,  the  human  and  the  divine,  in  the 


'/A  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

one  life  of  Christ  imperatively  requires  the  presence  of  both  natures 
in  the  unity  of  his  personality. 

2.  Commu?iion  of  Aftribufes  in  His  Personality. — There  is  in 
doctrinal  Christology  a  distinction  between  the  communion  and  the 
communication  of  attributes  in  Christ.  The  former  means  simply 
that  the  attributes  of  the  two  natures  are  common  to  the  person  of 
Christ;  the  latter,  that  each  nature  communicates  its  attributes 
to  the  other  ;  particularly,  that  the  divine  nature  imparts  its  attri- 
SENSE  OF  COM-  butcs  to  thc  human  nature.  The  theory  is  technically 
MUNicATioN.  expressed  as  the  coimnunicatio  idiomatum.  This  was 
really  the  monophysitic  or  Eutychian  theory,  previously  noticed, 
and  which  we  found  to  be  excluded  as  a  heresy  from  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church.  As  a  modern  theory,  it  has  its  place  mostly  in  the 
Lutheran  theology.  It  is  necessary  to  the  doctrine  of  consubstan- 
tiation — the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in 
the  sacrament  of  the  supper — as  maintained  in  Lutheranism.  As 
previously  pointed  out,  the  deification  of  the  human  nature  of 
Christ  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  human  facts  so  thoroughly 
manifest  in  his  life.  This  may  here  suflBlce,  as  we  must  again  con- 
sider this  theory. 

The  communion  of  the  attributes  in  Christ,  in  the  sense  that  the 
SENSE  OF  COM-  attrlbutes  of  the  two  natures  are  common  to  his  per- 
MCNioN.  sonality,  is  clearly  a  truth  of  the   Scriptures,  and  a 

truth  necessary  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Christological  facts 
which  they  contain.  Such  a  communion  is  determined  by  the  nat- 
ure of  the  divine  incarnation.  Therein  the  personal  Son  took  the 
nature  of  man  into  personal  union  with  himself.  The  two  natures, 
without  change  in  either,  were  thus  united  in  the  personal  oneness 
of  the  Christ.  Therefore,  as  he  thus  unites  in  himself  the  two 
natures,  he  must  possess  the  attributes  of  both  in  the  unity  of  hi* 
personality.  Accordingly,  the  Scriptures  freely,  and  with  frequent 
repetition,  ascribe  to  him  both  human  and  divine  facts.  In  the 
collection  of  separate  utterances  we  find  the  ascription  of  attri- 
butes in  the  utmost  extremes.  Christ  is  an  infant  in  the  arms  of 
Mary,  and  over  all,  God  blessed  forever ;  weary  from  his  journey, 
and  the  upholder  of  all  things  ;  grows  in  stature  and  acquires 
knowledge  in  the  manner  of  other  children,  and  yet  is  the  same 
yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  forever.  Often  there  are  such  ascrip- 
tions in  the  same  verse  or  passage.  Such  are  the  paradoxes  of 
Christology  which  find  their  interpretation  in  the  theanthropic 
character  of  Christ. 

3.  Truth  of  a  Theanthropic  Personality. — As  in  his  personality 
Christ  possesses  the  attributes  of  both  the  divine  nature  and  the 


CHRIST  IS  THEANTHROPIC.  25 

human,  so  must  he  be  a  theanthropic  person.  As  a  person  he  is 
not  God  merely,  nor  man  merely,  but  God-man.  This  meaninc*  of 
must  be  the  meaning  of  the  orthodox  creeds,  for  other-  ™^  creeds. 
wise  they  would  be  self -contradictory.  They  ever  confess  the  one- 
ness of  Christ  in  two  distinct  natures.  With  such  a  duality  of 
natures  he  can  be  one  only  in  his  personality.  Yet,  with  the  confes- 
sion of  the  one  Christ  in  the  two  natures,  the  same  creeds  declare 
him  to  be  God  and  man.  We  may  instance  the  Chalcedonian  sym- 
bol.' The  Christological  symbol  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  is  really  the  same.*  But  the  immediate  connection  denies 
to  these  terms,  very  God  and  very  man,  a  definite  personal  mean- 
ing in  their  application  to  Christ ;  for  with  this  meaning  the  same 
symbol  would  confess  him  as  one  person,  and  also  as  two  persons, 
and  would  be  self -contradictory.  Besides,  it  is  not  the  meaning  of 
either  the  Scriptures  or  the  Christological  symbols  that  in  a  personal 
sense  Christ  is  very  God  and  very  man.  This  is  really  the  Nestorian 
heresy,  which  the  creeds  so  formally  and  thoroughly  reject.  Christ 
is  very  God  and  very  man  only  in  the  sense  that  he  possesses  the 
two  natures  in  the  oneness  of  his  personality.  In  his  personal  one- 
ness he  is  simply  and  truly  God-man. 

The  theanthropic  personality  of  Christ  is  determined  by  the 
nature  of  the  divine  incarnation.  This  incarnation  was  result  of  the 
a  profound  reality.  Therein  the  divine  Son  took  the  incarnation. 
nature  of  man  into  a  most  intimate,  even  a  personal  union  with  him- 
self. W^ith  this  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  there  is  for  him 
both  divine  and  human  facts  of  consciousness.  There  is  still  a 
unity  of  consciousness,  as  a  central  reality  of  all  personality,  but  for 
this  consciousness  in  Christ  there  are  new  facts,  which  are  deter- 
mined by  his  human  nature.  We  have  no  insight  into  this  mystery. 
Indeed,  as  previously  pointed  out,  we  have  no  insight  into  the  en- 
shrinement  of  our  own  mind  in  a  physical  organism,  or  into  the  unity 
of  our  own  consciousness  in  the  mingling  of  the  diverse  forms  of  ex- 
perience as  determined  by  our  sensuous,  rational,  and  moral  natures. 
But,  if  we  accept  the  personal  union  of  a  human  nature  with  the  di- 
vine nature,  we  should  not  stumble  at  the  new  facts  of  consciousness. 
They  lie  in  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation,  but  surely  belong  to  its 
reality.  The  facts  determine  the  theanthroj)ic  character  of  the 
Christ.     In  the  truest,  deepest  sense  he  is  personally  God-man. 

'  "  We  ,  .  .  confess  one  and  the  same  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  .  .  . 
truly  God  and  truly  man." 

'^  "  So  that  two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say,  the  Godhead  and 
manhood,  were  joined  together  in  one  person,  .  .  .  whereof  is  one  Christ,  very 
God  and  very  man." — Articles  of  Religion,  article  ii. 

4  ' 


26  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

4.  A  Necessity  to  the  Atonement. — Any  other  union  of  the  divine 

nature  with  the  human  than  that  in  a  personal  oneness  must  leave 

the  human  in  its  own  complete  and  separate  personality.     What, 

then,  is  the  ofEerinff  or  sacrifice  in  atonement  for  sin? 

NO    MERE    HU-  .  ^^  .  ^ 

MAN  SACK  I-  A  human  being,  a  mere  man.  jNo  gracious  endowments 
^^^^'  or  supernatural  gifts  could  change  the  grade  of  his  be- 

ing. As  the  paschal  lamb  whose  blood  was  shed  in  atonement  for 
sin  was  a  mere  lamb,  so  Christ,  who  was  sacrificed  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world,  would  be  a  mere  man.  This  would  mean  that 
Christ,  who  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us  an  offering  and  a  sac- 
rifice to  God,  was  a  mere  man; '  that  our  great  High-priest,  Jesus, 
the  Son  of  God,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself 
without  spot  to  God  in  atonement  for  sin,  was  a  mere  man.*  We 
need  not  pause  to  show  how  utterly  false  such  a  view  is  to  the  pro- 
found meaning  of  these  texts,  and  of  many  others  like  them.  All 
the  fundamental  truths  of  Christian  theology  must  pronounce  such 
a  mere  human  sacrifice  utterly  insufficient  for  the  redemption  of 
the  world. 

These  consequences  cannot  be  obviated  by  any  appeal  to  the 
offices  of  the  Son  as  our  great  High-priest  in  the  offer- 

CHRIST  BOTH          ,  »     /-mi       .  i  m  •  •  i 

PRIEST  AND  mg  up  of  Christ  on  the  cross.  There  is  no  priesthood 
SACRIFICE.  ^j  ^j^g  g^^  without  his  incarnation  in  a  manner  which 
unites  the  nature  of  man  in  personal  oneness  with  himself.  Be- 
sides, if  we  divide  the  Christ  into  distinct  personalities,  the  one 
divine  and  the  other  human,  even  the  priestly  service  of  the  divine 
could  not  change  the  character  or  grade  of  the  human  sacrifice;  it 
would  still  be  merely  human.  Nor  can  we,  in  this  case,  hold  priest 
and  sacrifice  in  any  such  duality.  Christ  is,  at  once,  both  priest 
and  sacrifice:  ''  Who  needeth  not  daily,  as  those  high-priests,  to 
offer  up  sacrifice,  first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's  : 
for  this  he  did  once,  when  he  offered  up  himself.''  ''For  then 
must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the  world:  but 
now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away 
sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."^  Thus  the  identity  of  priest  and 
AND  PERSON-  sacrlficc  in  the  atonement  is  definitely  a  truth  of  the 
ALLY  ONE.  Scriptures.  Any  such  division  of  Christ  into  a  divine 
priest  and  a  human  sacrifice  is  manifestly  false  to  the  Scriptures; 
and  it  is  equally  false  to  the  catholic  doctrine  of  his  person- 
ality. In  the  hour  of  our  redemption  the  Christ  does  not  fall 
asunder  into  two  persons,  the  one  divine  and  the  other  human, 
while  the  divine  in  the  office  of  high-priest  offers  up  the  human 
in  atonement  for  sin;  but  the  divine,  incarnate  in  the  human,  offers 
•  Eph.  V,  3.  »  Heb.  iv,  14  ;  ix,  14.  =  Heb.  vii,  27  ;  ix,  36. 


CHRIST  IS  THEANTHROPIC.  27 

up  himself.  Only  thus  can  we  secure  the  truth  and  reality  of 
the  atonement.  The  possibility  of  such  an  atonement  lies  in  the 
theanthropic  personality  of  Christ. 

II.  The  Interpretation  of  Christological  Facts. 

In  treating  the  theanthropic  character  of  Christ  we  might  have 
begun  with  the  multiform  facts  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to 
him,  and  thus  in  an  inductive  method  reached  the  truth  of  his 
theanthropic  personality.  This  truth,  however,  we  found  in  the 
nature  and  reality  of  the  divine  incarnation.     Now  we 

THF   KFY 

find  in  this  truth  the  key  to  the  many  Christological 
paradoxes  which  appear  in  the  Scriptures.  These  paradoxes  lie  in 
the  diverse  facts  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  Christ.  But,  while 
we  find  in  his  theanthropic  personality  the  interpretation  and  har- 
mony of  these  diverse  facts,  we  also  find  therein  the  verification  of 
his  theanthropic  character.  Thus  it  is  doubly  proved  that  Christ 
is  verily  God-man. 

It  should  be  specially  noted  that  the  facts  here  considered  are 
ascribed  to  Christ  in  his  personality,  and  are  true  of  him  facts  of  per- 
as  a  person.  Most  of  these  facts  have  appeared  already  sonality. 
in  our  discussion,  particularly  in  the  treatment  of  the  divinity  and 
humanity  of  Christ,  and  therefore  require  only  a  summary  presen- 
tation here. 

1.  Facts  of  Divinity  Ascrihed  to  Christ. — The  Son  incarnate  is 
the  personal  Christ.  Hence,  as  we  found  the  Son  in  possession  of 
the  distinctive  facts  of  divinity,  so  we  find  the  Christ  in  full  pos- 
session of  the  same  facts.  The  Scriptures  ascribe  to  him  the  titles, 
attributes,  works,  and  worshipfulness  which  belong  only  to  true 
and  essential  divinity.  All  this  ascription  is  thoroughly  warranted 
on  the  ground  of  his  divine  nature. 

2.  Facts  of  Humanity  Ascribed  to  Christ. — These  facts  were 
sufficiently  given  in  treating  the  humanity  of  Christ,  as  furnishing 
the  second  element  in  the  formulated  doctrine  of  his  personality. 
They  are  the  common  essential  or  distinctive  facts  of  humanity. 
The  Scriptures  freely  ascribe  them  to  the  same  personal  Christ  to 
whom  they  ascribe  the  facts  of  divinity.  This  is  properly  done 
because  he  possesses  a  true  and  complete  human  nature.  As  the 
divine  facts  ascribed  to  him  have  their  interpretation  on  the  ground 
of  his  divinity,  so  these  human  facts  have  their  interpretation  on 
the  ground  of  his  human  nature.  Thus  on  the  ground  of  the  two 
natures  in  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ  the  two  classes  of  facts 
come  into  complete  harmony. 

In  like  manner  we  have  the  interpretation  of  various  texts  which 


28  SYSTE>LiTIC  THEOLOGY. 

combine  the    two  classes  of    facts  in  ascribing  them  to  Christ. 
The  child  born,  the  Son  dven,  is  the  mightv  God,  the 

THE        T  W  0  o  -'  <j        *.  ■^ 

CLASSES  COM-  evei'lastiug  Father. '  He  is  in  the  form  of  God  and  in  the 
BixED.  likeness  of  men.''    The  same  person  who  redeems  us  with 

his  blood  is  before  all  things,  and  the  creator  and  preserver  of  all 
things.^  The  combination  of  divine  and  human  facts  in  these 
great  texts  places  them  in  no  contradictory  opposition.  The  para- 
doxes remain,  but,  Just  as  in  the  preceding  instances,  the  facts  come 
into  complete  harmony  through  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
the  personal  oneness  of  Christ. 

3.  Divine  Facts  Ascribed  to  Christ  as  Human. — *' And  no  man 
hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven, 
even  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in  heaven." '  The  words,  '*  No  man 
hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,"  may  have  been  intended  to  correct  a 
somewhat  prevalent  notion,  that  Moses  ascended  into  heaven  in 
order  to  receive  the  law  which  he  gave  to  the  Hebrew  people.^  Two 
facts  are  to  be  noted:  that  Christ  came  down  from  heaven,  and  that 
when  here  on  earth  he  was  in  lieaven.  Christ  affirms  both  facts  of 
himself  as  the  Son  of  man.  But  he  is  the  Son  of  man  in  his  human 
nature,  while  his  coming  down  from  heaven  and  still  being  in  heaven 
are  facts  of  his  divinity,  which  are  thus  ascribed  to  him  as  human.* 
Supreme  worship  is  rendered  to  Christ  as  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  : 
"  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  to  receive  power,  and  riches, 
and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing.  .  .  . 
Blessing,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sit- 
teth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever." '  Such 
divine  worship  is  rendered  to  Christ  as  the  Lamb  slain,  and,  there- 
fore, as  represented  in  his  human  nature.  Many  like  texts  might 
be  added,  but  those  given  will  suffice. 

4.  HumaJi  Facts  Ascribed  to  Christ  as  Divine. — "Behold,  a 
virgin  shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  they 
shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel,  which  being  interpreted  is,  God 
with  us. "  *  To  be  thus  conceived  and  born  are  specially  human 
facts ;  but  they  are  ascribed  to  Christ  as  in  view  of  his  divine 
nature.  This  is  manifest  in  his  name,  Emmanuel,  God  with  us. 
The  blood  of  Christ,  shed  in  atonement  for  sin,  is  a  fact  of  his  hu- 
man nature  ;  but  it  is  ascribed  to  him  as  divine.  This  appears  in 
the  words  in  which  the  ministry  is  charged  "  to  feed  the  Church 
of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." '  "We  have  a 
like  instance  in  the  crucifixion  of  Christ:  "  They  crucified  the  Lord 

'  Isa.  is.,  6.  «  Phil,  ii,  6,  7.  '  Col.  i,  14-17.  «  John  iii,  13. 

'  Clarke  :    Commentary,  in  loc.  "  See  also  John  vi,  38,  62. 

"  Rev.  V,  12,  13.  « Matt,  i,  23.  'Acts  xi,  28. 


CHRIST  IS  TIIEANTIIROPIC.  29 

of  glory.'"  The  human  fact  of  the  crucifixion  is  thus  ascribed  to 
Christ  as  divine.  We  cannot  find  a  lower  meaning  in  his  designa- 
tion as  the  Lord  of  glory. 

We  have  thus  found,  under  the  last  two  heads,  the  ascription  of 
divine  facts  to  Christ  as  human,  and  the  ascription  of  jhk  imerpre- 
human  facts  to  him  as  divine.  The  two  cases  have  the  tation. 
same  interpretation.  In  each  there  is  a  synecdochical  designation 
of  Christ.  This  is  a  mode  of  speech  much  in  use.  Nor  does  it 
mislead  or  deceive  any  one.  The  meaning  is  thus  given  as  clearly 
and  definitely  as  in  any  other  mode.  The  divine  and  human  natures 
are  so  united  in  the  person  of  Christ  and  so  integral  to  his  person- 
ality that  he  may  properly  be  designated  in  the  view  of  either.  In 
any  such  instance  the  one  nature  represents  the  whole  person  of 
Christ.  It  follows  that  the  two  classes  of  facts,  the  divine  and  the 
human,  may  be  respectively  ascribed  to  him  under  the  designation 
of  either  nature.  Such  is  the  interpretation  of  these  two  cases. 
But  the  very  ground  of  this  interpretation  lies  in  the  union  of  the 
two  natures  in  the  personality  of  Christ,  just  as  we  found  it  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  other  facts  considered  in  this  section.  Now, 
as  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ  in  the  union  of  the  two  natures 
furnishes  the  interpretation  of  all  those  facts,  so,  in  turn,  they  con- 
firm the  truth  of  his  personality  as  so  constituted.  But  a  person- 
ality so  constituted  must  be  truly  theanthropic.     Christ  is  very 

God-man. 

>  1  Cor.  ii,  8. 


QQ  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTEE  IV. 

THE   SYMPATHY   OP  CHRIST. 

The  sympathy  of  Christ  is  in  itself  an  important  truth  of  Chris- 
tology;  but  the  special  reason  for  its  present  treatment  lies  in  its 
intimate  relation  to  the  question  of  his  personality.  Some  facts 
which  deeply  concern  this  question  may  be  most  appropriately 
treated  under  the  heading  of  the  present  chapter. 

The  sympathy  of  Christ  has  an  open  place  in  the  Scriptures. 
PLACE  IN  Inspiration  gives  it  clear  and  full  expression.  We  may 
SCRIPTURE.  aigo  view  it  in  the  light  of  our  own  sympathy,  although 
there  is  a  wide  difference  between  the  two.  We  ever  associate  the 
sympathy  of  Christ  with  his  greatness,  with  the  intensity  of  his 
suffering  and  the  infinite  fullness  of  his  love.  Hence,  it  has  for 
our  thought  and  feeling  a  fullness  and  sufficiency  infinitely  above 
all  mere  human  sympathy.  Still  the  fact  of  sympathy  in  ourselves 
is  helpful  in  this  study,  and  gives  us  the  deeper  and  clearer  insight 
into  the  sympathy  of  Christ. 

With  these  several  facts  in  hand  this  sympathy  may  seem  to  us 
PROFOUND  a  specially  open  truth  and  one  most  easy  of  comprehen- 
yuESTioN.  sion.  Simply  as  a  fact  it  is  most  manifest,  but  as  a 
truth  for  doctrinal  study  it  is  one  of  the  profoundest  in  Christian 
theology.  It  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  divine  incarnation, 
and  this  fact  invests  some  of  its  elements  in  a  like  mystery.  Still 
it  is  a  great  and  precious  truth  of  Christology,  and  therefore  a 
proper  subject  for  our  deepest  study.  In  order  to  the  greatest  bene- 
fit of  this  sympathy  in  our  Christian  life  there  is  need  that  we  appre- 
hend its  real  and  sufficient  grounds.  The  apprehension  of  these 
grounds  will  give  us  the  clearer  insight  into  the  person  of  Christ. 

I.  Sympathy  theough  Common"  Suffering. 

1.  A  True  and  Deep  Lmv  of  Sympathy. — It  is  not  assumed,  nor 
could  it  be  successfully  maintained,  that  common  suffering  is  a  nec- 
NOT  A  NECEs-  cssary  condition  of  sympathy.  Such  a  capacity  seems 
SARY  LAW.  intrinsic  to  our  own  nature  wholly  irrespective  of  any 
personal  suffering.  It  is  a  fact  of  the  Scriptures  that  holy  and  ever 
happy  angels  sympathize  with  us  in  the  misery  and  peril  of  sin. 
Only  with  such  sympathy  can  they  have  Joy  in  our  repentance  and 


THE  SYMPATHY  OF  CHRIST.  31 

ealvation.  Here  we  have  an  instance  of  very  real  sympathy  with- 
out any  ground  in  common  suffering.  The  compassionate  love  of 
the  Father,  a  love  in  profound  sympathy  with  us,  was  the  deepest 
source  of  the  great  plan  of  human  redemption.  Also,  before  the 
incarnation  and  suffering  of  the  Son  he  was  in  loving  sympathy 
with  us. 

It  is  none  the  less  a  truth  that  suffering,  and  particularly  suffer- 
ing in  common  with  others,  is  a  very  real  law  of  sym-  very  real 
pathy.  Few,  if  any,  are  without  the  personal  experi-  ''^^'■ 
ence  which  verifies  this  law.  Innumerable  witnesses  could  testify 
to  its  reality.  More  readily,  and  as  by  the  attraction  of  a  special 
affinity,  we  go  for  sympathy  to  those  who  have  suffered  ;  for  the 
deepest  sympathy,  to  those  who  have  suffered  as  we  suffer. 

2.  Law  of  tlie  Symjmthy  of  Christ. — There  is  the  same  law  of 
sympathy  in  Christ.  This  is  not  a  speculation  or  mere  inference, 
but  an  explicit  truth  of  Scripture.  And  it  is  a  truth  to  which  the 
Christian  consciousness  is  gratefully  responsive.  As  in  the  exigen- 
cies of  our  trouble  and  sorrow  we  turn  to  Christ  for  his  helpful 
sympathy,  the  fact  of  his  own  suffering  in  our  nature,  and  in  a 
manner  so  like  our  own,  is  ever  most  assuring. 

It  is  proper  that  we  here  present  this  law  of  his  sympathy  in  the 
light  of  the  Scriptures.  A  few  texts  will  suffice  for  the  clear  in 
presentation.  ''  For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  scripture. 
being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted."  '  There 
are  other  like  words  :  ''  For  we  have  not  a  high-priest  which  can- 
not be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities  ;  but  was  in  all 
points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin."  '  Immediately 
preceding  these  words  the  duty  of  fidelity  to  the  Christian  profes- 
sion is  strongly  enforced.  "  Seeing  then  that  we  have  a  great 
high-priest,  that  is  passed  into  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Sou  of 
God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  profession."  '  Such  a  characterization  of 
our  great  High-priest  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  as  having  passed  into 
the  heavens,  might  readily  suggest  a  doubt  whether  one  so  remote 
in  his  exaltation  and  greatness  could  still  have  a  helpful  sympathy 
with  his  disciples  in  the  sore  trials  incident  to  their  Christian  pro- 
fession. Hence,  as  if  in  apprehension  of  such  a  doubt,  there  im- 
mediately follow  the  words,  as  previously  cited,  which  give  the  fact 
of  his  own  former  sufferings  as  the  ground  and  warrant  of  his  ever- 
abiding  sympathy.  This  law  of  his  sympathy  is  thus  specially  em- 
phasized. 

3.   The  Law  Appropriated   in   the  Incarnation. — Our   previous 
discussion  of  the  incarnation  supersedes  any  requirement  for  its 
'  Heb.  ii,  18.  "  Heb.  iv,  15.  '  Heb.  iv,  14. 


32  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

formal  treatment  here.  All  that  we  further  need  is  to  point  out 
and  briefly  illustrate  the  fact  stated  in  our  last  heading,  that  it  was 
through  his  incarnation  that  Christ  appropriated  the  law  of  his 
sympathy  with  us. 

It  seems  clearly  the  sense  of  Scripture  that  a  special  purpose  of 
A  PURPOSE  the  Son  in  the  incarnation  was  that  through  a  partici- 
THEREOF.  pation  in  our  suffering  he  might  have  the  deeper  sym- 
pathy with  us.  It  was  in  the  incarnation  that  he  was  made  a  little 
lower  than  the  angels ;  and  therein  he  entered  into  the  profound 
suffering  which  he  endured.^  A  special  reason  for  all  this  is  im- 
mediately given,  which  means  the  truth  here  maintained  :  "  For 
it  became  him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things, 
in  bringing  many  sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  sal- 
vation perfect  through  sufferings. "  ^  Other  verses  follow  which  are 
replete  with  the  same  truth.  Through  the  incarnation  the  divine 
Son  entered  into  a  real  brotherhood  with  man.  In  this  brother- 
hood there  is  sympathy  with  us  in  our  sufferings.^  He  thus  met  all 
the  requirements  for  the  work  of  our  salvation:  *^  Wherefore  in  all 
things  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he 
might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high-priest  in  things  pertaining 
to  God,  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  For  in 
that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succor 
them  that  are  tempted."  * 

It  is  thus  manifest  that  the  divine  incarnation,  with  its  result  in 
the  personality  of  the  Christ,  furnishes  the  real  ground 

THE  APPROPRI-  L  J  '  & 

ATioN  MANi-  of  his  sympathy.  Hence,  if  we  would  reach  any  proper 
^^^'^'  apprehension  of  his  sympathy  we  must  view  it  in  the 

light  of  his  incarnation. 

4.  Thorough  Appropriation  of  the  Law. — The  divine  incarnation 
was  very  real;  therefore  the  appropriation  of  this  law  of  sympathy 
was  very  thorough.  We  need  not  here  renew  the  formal  discussion 
of  the  incarnation ;  yet  a  few  facts  which  directly  concern  the  pres- 
ent question  may  properly  be  specialized. 

The  divine  Son  assumed  a  real  human  nature.  The  facts,  as 
given  in  the  Scriptures,  allow  no  place  for  the  early 

A  REAL  BODY  ±  ■'  x  v 

Gnosticism  which  denied  this  reality  and  held  the  hu- 
man form  of  Christ  to  be  a  mere  phantasm.  On  the  truth  of  such 
a  theory  there  could  have  been  no  divine  appropriation  of  a  law  of 
sympathy  with  us.  The  theory  openly  contradicts  the  facts  of 
Scripture.  In  proof  of  this  we  need  only  to  recall  the  appropriate 
texts,  most  of  which  were  previously  cited.  *'  The  Word  was 
made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us."  "  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children 
>  Heb.  ii,  9.        «  Heb.  ii,  10.        ^  jjeb.  ii,  11-16.        *  Heb.  ii,  17,  18. 


THE  SYMPATHY  OP  CHRIST.  33 

are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise  took 
part  of  the  same."  "  For  many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the 
world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.'"  It 
seems  quite  impossible  to  mistake  the  meaning  of  such  explicit 
words  respecting  the  reality  of  the  human  body  of  Christ. 

In  the  incarnation  the  divine  Son  assumed,  not  only  a  real  human 
body,  but  also  a  human  soul,  the  soul  and  body  thus 
constituting  a  complete  human  nature.  This  is,  at 
once,  the  sense  of  Scripture  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Church  repudiated  the  Apollinarian  heresy,  which, 
while  conceding  to  Christ  a  real  body,  denied  to  him  a  human 
mind,  and  assumed  to  provide  for  its  functions  in  his  life  by 
the  offices  of  the  incarnate  Logos.  It  was  no  such  defective  form 
of  human  nature  that  the  divine  Son  assumed  in  the  incarna- 
tion. The  historic  life  of  Christ  can  have  no  interpre-  maj„fj.st  in 
tation  without  the  presence  of  a  human  mind.  The  the  life  op 
phenomena  of  such  a  mind  are  just  as  manifest  in  his 
life  as  the  phenomena  of  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood.  Further,  with- 
out the  presence  of  such  a  mind  there  could  be  no  sufficient  ground 
for  the  sympathy  of  Christ.  Many  of  our  own  experiences  in  which 
we  so  mu^ch  need  his  sympathy  have  their  seat  in  our  rational  and 
moral  nature.  Hence  the  need  that  the  "  reasonable  soul  "  should 
constitute  a  part  of  the  nature  assumed  in  the  incarnation.  It  was 
only  in  a  personal  union  with  the  human  mind  in  his  incarnation 
that  the  divine  Son  could  appropriate  the  law  of  sympathy  through 
a  common  suffering  with  us.  This  law  he  did  fully  appropriate 
by  the  assumption  of  our  complete  nature. 

We  here  emphasize  another  point  previously  made.  The  human 
nature  assumed  in  the  incarnation  suffered  no  change  the  nature 
in  consequence  of  this  assumption.  Again  we  meet  an  unchanged. 
opposing  and  perverting  heresy,  the  Eutychian,  which  assumed  a 
transmutation  of  the  human  nature  into  the  divine.  With  such 
a  result  there  could  be  no  place  for  the  human  facts  in  the  life  of 
Christ ;  no  place  for  the  experiences  which  are  the  ground  of  his 
sympathy.  This  heresy  was  rejected  by  the  Church,  and  the  truth 
was  maintained,  that  the  human  nature  assumed  in  the  incarnation 
remained  unchanged.  With  this  truth  the  ground  of  the  sympa- 
thy of  Christ  remains  complete. 

In  the  incarnation  the  complete  human  nature  was  taken  into 
personal  union  with  the  divine.     Here  again  there  was     a  personal 
an  opposing  heresy,  the  Nestorian,  which  denied  the     ^^'on- 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ,  and 
'  John  i,  14 ;  Heb.  ii,  14  ;  2  John  7. 


g4  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

held  that  in  the  historic  Christ  there  were  really  two  persons,  the 
Son  of  God  and  a  human  person.  Between  the  two,  as  thus  dis- 
tinct in  personality,  there  could  be  only  a  spiritual  communion. 
Consequently,  there  could  be  no  sympathy  of  the  Son  through  a  law 
of  common  suffering  with  us.  But,  with  the  personal  oneness  of 
Christ  in  the  union  of  the  two  natures,  the  ground  of  his  sympathy 
remains  complete. 

The  life  of  Christ  is  replete  with  instances  of  suffering  in  the 
likeness  of  our  own.  His  sufferings  were  manifold  and 
LIKE  OUR  deep.  In  him  were  fulfilled  the  prophetic  utterances  of 
*^''"  Isaiah:  ''He  is  despised  and  rejected  of  men;  a  man 

of  sorrows,  and  acquainted  with  grief."'  He  suffered  trials  even 
from  his  chosen  disciples.  Much  more  did  he  suffer  the  contradic- 
tion of  hostile  minds.  Malignant  eyes  were  ever  upon  him.  Scribe 
and  Pharisee,  priest  and  people,  were  combined  against  him  in 
hatred  and  persecution.  Deep  were  his  trials  from  the  opposition 
of  the  wicked.  There  is  profound  meaning  in  the  words:  "  For 
consider  him  that  endured  such  contradiction  of  sinners  against 
POWER  OF  HIS  himself,  lest  ye  be  wearied  and  faint  in  your  minds."  - 
EXAMPLE.  These  trials  were  such  in  kind  as  the  disciples  of  Christ 
were  called  to  suffer;  for  otherwise  there  could  have  been  no  power 
in  his  example  of  patience  to  fortify  their  minds  with  a  like  power 
of  endurance.  His  own  words  picture  to  us  other  forms  of  trial: 
"  The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  have  nests;  but  the 
Son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head."  '  Here  again  is  the 
meaning  of  such  trials  as  often  enter  into  human  experiences;  only, 
the  meaning  is  specially  profound  in  the  application  of  the  words 
to  Christ.  Nor  may  we  infer  that  his  transcendent  character  in 
anywise  rendered  him  indifferent  to  such  forms  of  trial.  With 
such  loftiness  of  character  his  sensibilities  were  all  the  more  acute. 

Still,  there  are  differences  between  Christ  and  ourselves  which 
POINTS  OF  DiF-  may  suggest  some  doubt  respecting  this  law  of  sympa- 
FERENCE.  ^jjy^     QjjQ  ig   that,  whatever  his  temptation  or  trial, 

there  was  in  him  no  evil  tendency,  while  in  us  there  is  such  a  tend- 
ency. How,  then,  can  he  sympathize  with  us  in  our  conflict  with 
such  a  tendency,  since  there  was  no  such  experience  in  his  own 
trials  ?  The  law  of  his  sympathy  is  not  deficient  at 
this  point.  The  profound  reality  of  the  divine  incar- 
nation still  provides  for  its  sufficiency.  In  the  assumption  of  a 
complete  human  nature  into  a  personal  union  with  himself  the 
divine  Son  entered  so  deeply  into  the  consciousness  of  human 
experiences  that,  without  any  evil  tendency  of  his  own  nature,  he 
'  Isa.  liii,  3.  -  Heb.  xii,  3.  '  Matt,  viii,  20. 


THE  SYMPATHY  OF  CHRIST.  35 

can  sympathize  with  us  in  our  conflict  with  such  tendencies.  We 
may  instance  his  temptation  in  tlie  wilderness.'  In  this  tempta- 
tion he  knew  in  his  own  experience  the  intense  appetence  of  very 
real  hunger.  He  thus  knew  the  appeal  of  worldly  power  and  glory, 
and  the  solicitation  to  an  irrational  presumption  upon  the  provi- 
dence of  God.  All  this  must  be  admitted,  or  we  sink  re^l  tempta- 
these  temptations  into  a  mere  appearance,  with  the  con-  '^'^^''^• 
sequence,  that  Christ  was  not  really  tempted  in  the  wilderness.  A 
solicitation  in  the  sensibilities  and  an  inclination  responsive  to  its 
gratification  are  distinct  facts,  and  the  entire  absence  of  the  latter 
does  not  affect  the  reality  of  the  former.  While  these  forms  of 
temptation  found  nothing  responsive  in  the  nature  of  Christ,  as  too 
often  they  do  in  our  own,  still  he  knew  in  his  own  experience  their 
power  of  solicitation.  These  trials  were  so  very  real  in  the  experience  of 
Christ,  and  so  comprehensive  of  the  forms  of  our  own  trials,  that  they 
constitute  in  him  a  very  real  and  profound  law  of  sympathy  with  us. 
There  is  another  suggestion  of  doubt  respecting  this  law  of  sym- 
pathy.   It  arises  from  the  fact  that  we  have  forms  of       „„     „ 

^  -^  .  .  .  NOT    IN  ALL 

trial  of  which  Christ  had  no  experience.  There  are  our  forms 
spheres  of  life  into  which  he  never  entered,  and  hence  ^^  trial. 
he  could  not  know  in  his  own  experience  the  precise  forms  of  trial 
peculiar  to  these  spheres.  This  is  the  view.  It  is  true  that  in  one 
text  of  Scripture  the  law  of  Christ's  sympathy  is  based  on  an  ex- 
perience of  trial  as  broad  and  diverse  as  our  own:  "  For  we  have 
not  a  high-priest  which  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our 
infirmities  ;  but  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  with- 
out sin."^  This,  however,  need  not  be  interpreted  in  an  absolute 
sense.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  Christ  should  have  entered  into  all 
the  precise  forms  of  our  own  trial  in  order  to  sympathize  with  us 
in  all.  We  find  in  ourselves  the  power  of  sympathy  with  others 
in  forms  of  trial  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  the  more  deeply  as  we 
ourselves  have  suffered,  though  not  in  precisely  the  same  form  of  trial. 
So  his  trials  were  so  multiform  and  deep,  and  so  thoroughly  in  the 
cast  of  our  own,  as  to  constitute  in  him  the  profoundest  and  most 
comprehensive  law  of  sympathy  with  us.  When  we  add  to  the  many 
trials  of  his  life  the  severe  sufferings  which  crowded  its  closing 
hours  the  law  of  his  sympathy  with  us  is  manifestly  complete. 

II.  The  Consciousness  of  Chkist  in  Suffeking. 

In  the  conclusion  of  the  previous  section  it  was  stated  that  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  in  common  with  our  own  were  such  in  multi- 
formity and  intensity  as  to  constitute  a  complete  law  of  his  sym- 
'Matt.  iv,  1-11.  «Heb.  iv.  15. 


36  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

pathy  with  us.  There  is,  however,  a  further  question  which  vitally 
concerns  the  sufficiency  of  this  law.  It  is  the  question  of  the  con- 
sciousness of  Christ  in  the  sufferings  which  he  endured.  The  doc- 
trine of  his  personality  is  vitally  concerned  in  this  question. 

1.  Deeper  than  a  Human  Consciousness. — On  the  ground  of  the 
person  of  Christ,  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  and  accepted  in  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  he  suffered  in  a  consciousness  far  deeper  than 
a  mere  human  consciousness.  In  a  personal  oneness  there  must  be 
a  unity  of  consciousness.  With  a  distinct  and  purely  human  con- 
sciousness in  Christ  there  must  have  been  a  distinct  human  person. 
The  result  would  be  either  a  Socinian  or  a  Nestorian  Christology. 
Christ  must  have  been  either  a  mere  man  or  two  persons,  divine 
and  human,  in  a  merely  spiritual  communion.  Each  consequence 
is  contrary  to  the  accepted  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and 
subversive  of  all  that  is  deep  and  evangelical  in  Christianity. 

Yet  even  in  the  orthodox  faith  or  with  orthodox  believers  there 
is  a  tendency  to  the  Nestorian  view.     While  the  thean- 

TENDENCY     TO  .  '' 

NESTORiAN  throplc  charactcr  of  Christ,  as  determined  by  the  union 
VIEW.  ^£  ^j^g  ^^^  natures  in  a  oneness  of  personality,  is  ac- 

cepted as  a  truth  of  doctrine,  there  is  a  halting  at  the  consequent 
relation  of  his  divine  nature  to  the  consciousness  of  his  sufferings. 
In  the  thought  of  not  a  few  his  sufferings  are  restricted  to  a  mere 
human  consciousness.  Such  a  limitation  must  mean  a  distinct  hu- 
man person  in  Christ,  and  consequently  the  sundering  of  Christ 
into  two  persons.  This  is  openly  contradictory  to  the  accepted 
doctrine  of  his  personal  oneness  in  the  union  of  the  two  natures. 

3.  Else,  Only  a  Human  Sympathy. — If  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  limited  to  a  mere  human  consciousness,  his  sympathy  through 
a  law  of  common  suffering  with  us  must  be  limited  to  a  mere  human 
ground  and  capacity.  Sympathy  through  suffering  must  be  in  the 
same  consciousness  in  which  the  suffering  was  endured.  We  can- 
not limit  the  suffering  of  Christ  to  a  mere  human  consciousness 
and  then  carry  it  up  into  his  divine  consciousness  as  a  law  of  sym- 
pathy therein.  By  such  limitation  neither  the  suffering  nor  the 
sympathy  can  have  any  place  in  the  divine.  And  again  the  Christ 
is  sundered  into  two  persons,  the  one  divine  and  the  other  human, 
while  only  the  human  can  sympathize  with  us  through  a  law  of 
suffering. 

3.  An  Utterly  Insufficient  Sympathy . — A  mere  human  sympathy 
of  Christ,  though  in  the  fullest  capacity  of  the  human,  could  not 
answer  for  its  place  in  either  the  Scriptures  or  the  deeper  Christian 
thought  and  feeling.  There  was  no  deification  of  the  human 
nature    assumed  in   the  divine  incarnation.     Its    exaltation  and 


THE  SYMPATHY  OF  CHRIST.  37 

glorification  with  the  divine  Son  could  not  free  it  from  the  limita- 
tions of  the  finite.  The  false  assumption  of  its  distinct  personal 
existence  must  concede  it,  even  in  that  exaltation  and  glorification, 
the  limitations  of  the  human.  It  would  follow  that  the  sympathy 
of  Christ  through  a  law  of  common  suffering  with  us  must  be  sub- 
ject to  human  limitations.  Therefore  his  sympathy  could  not  be 
sufficient  for  the  many  instances  of  suffering  and  need  in  the  pres- 
ent life.  There  are  two  forms  of  limitation  which  should  receive 
special  notice. 

Sympathy  is  conditioned  by  the  measure  of  personal  knowledge. 
It  can  reach  no  one  which  the  knowledge  does  not  reach;  l^w  of  limi- 
nor  can  it  be  more  intense  than  the  clearness  of  the  tation. 
mental  apprehension.  These  facts  impose  narrow  limits  upon  the 
capacity  of  human  sympathy.  If  we  determine  for  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  a  distinct  human  personality,  his  knowledge  must 
be  subject  to  the  limitations  of  the  human.  As  his  sufferings,  if 
limited  to  a  human  consciousness,  cannot  be  carried  up  into  the 
divine  consciousness  as  a  law  of  sympathy  therein,  so  the  divine 
knowledge  cannot  be  brought  down  into  the  human  mind  as  the 
provision  of  a  sympathy  which  may  have  the  comprehensiveness  of 
the  divine.  The  sympathy  of  Christ  which  the  Scriptures  reveal  as 
through  a  law  of  common  suffering  with  us  would  thus  be  subject 
to  the  limitations  of  human  knowledge.  Hence,  it  could  reach  but 
few  of  the  many  that  need  its  gracious  ministries.  Nor  could  it  be 
intense  and  constant  respecting  any.  Such  is  not  the  sympathy  of 
Christ  which  the  Scriptures  reveal. 

There  is  still  another  law  of  disability  under  such  limitations. 
All  sympathy  through  mere  human  suffering  is  subject  another  law 
to  the  laws  of  time  and  changing  conditions.  The  try-  ^^  limitation, 
ing  experiences  which  lie  far  back  in  the  years  of  even  the  present 
life  give  little  power  of  present  sympathy  with  others  in  like  trials. 
The  mother  who  buried  her  child  twenty  years  ago  cannot  have 
through  the  memory  of  her  own  sorrow  the  same  sympathy  with  a 
friend  in  a  like  bereavement  as  the  mother  who  came  but  yesterday 
from  the  burial  of  her  child.  The  more  is  all  this  true  as  the  years 
subsequent  to  one's  sufferings  may  be  full  of  new  and  happy  expe- 
riences. The  same  laws  must  be  operative  in  the  future  as  in  the 
present  life.  The  deep  nature  of  Moses  was  tenderly  illustra- 
responsive  to  the  afflictions  of  his  people;  and  his  sym-  '^^°^^- 
pathy  was  the  deeper  as  he  suffered  with  them.  In  the  pathos  of 
this  sympathy  he  could  pray  that,  if  they  might  not  be  spared,  he 
might  perish  with  them.'     Such  a  soul  was  St.  Paul's.     AVith  a 

'  Exod.  xxxii,  32. 
5 


38  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

like  deep  nature  and  sympathy  he  could  wish  himself  accursed  from 
Christ  for  the  sake  of  his  brethren,  his  kinsmen  according  to  the 
jdesh.'  Neither  Moses  nor  Paul  has  lost  the  depth  of  his  nature 
in  the  glory  of  his  exaltation;  but  with  the  many  centuries  of 
blessedness  which  separate  them  from  their  earthly  sorrows  little 
power  of  sympathy  through  the  memory  of  those  sorrows  can  re- 
main with  them.  Some  personal  facts  of  the  present  life  we  may 
ever  carry  with  us  in  the  full  vigor  of  their  reality;  but  they  must  be 
facts  of  personal  conduct  which  concern  ourselves,  and  cannot  be 
such  as  mainly  constitute  the  ground  of  our  sympathy  with  others. 
If  we  limit  the  sufferings  of  Christ  to  a  human  consciousness, 
RESPECTixG  and  so  determine  for  him  a  distinct  human  personality, 
THE  CON-       i\yQYQ  must  bc  ttic  samc  laws  of  disability  in  his  sym- 

sciousness 

OF  CHRIST.  pathy.  These  consequences  cannot  be  voided  by  any 
appeal  to  his  divine  nature;  for  by  such  limitation  we  place  that 
nature  infinitely  above  all  consciousness  of  suffering;  and  there- 
fore we  cannot  bring  it  down  so  as  to  invigorate  the  law  of  his 
sympathy  and  lift  it  above  the  limitations  of  all  human  sympathy. 
If  the  sympathy  of  Christ  is  subject  to  such  limitations  it  must 
ever  be  a  diminishing  force,  and  in  the  blessedness  and  glory  of  his 
exaltation  would  already  be  quite  exhausted  of  its  efficiency. 

III.  Suffering  in  a  Theanthropic  Consciousness. 

In  the  unique  personality  of  Christ,  as  accepted  in  the  faith  of 
the  Church,  there  is  a  theanthroj)ic  consciousness;  and  in  the  ex- 
periences of  trial  and  suffering  therein  we  shall  find  the  real  and 
sufficient  law  of  his  sympathy. 

1.  Concerning  a  Human  Consciousness  of  the  Divine. — Often  a 
leading  question  in  the  orthodox  treatment  of  Christology  concerns 
the  human  consciousness  of  the  divine  in  Christ.  Many  facts  in 
his  earlier  life  appear  to  us  as  purely  and  distinctively  human, 
while  later  there  is  seemingly  a  transition  into  a  higher  conscious- 
ness, the  consciousness  of  a  divine  nature.  Such  facts  naturally 
suggest  this  question.  It  is  one,  however,  that  should  be  treated 
guardedly;  for,  otherwise,  it  may  prove  itself  misleading. 
MERELY  Hu-  It  procccds  on  the  assumption  of  a  distinctively  hu- 
^^^^'  man  personality  and  consciousness  in  Christ  for  a  longer 

or  shorter  period;  with  some,  reaching  the  time  of  his  baptism  or 
the  beginning  of  his  public  ministry.  In  this  view,  up  to  such 
time  the  incarnate  divine  nature  must  have  remained  in  a  latent 
state,  or  without  any  manifestation  in  the  consciousness  of  Christ. 
Or,  if  there  was  any  exception,  it  was  only  in  some  transient 

'  Eom.  ix,  3, 


THE  SYMPATHY  OF  CHRIST.  39 

instance,  such  as  that  of  his  notable  conversation  with  the  doctors  in 
the  temple. '  Otherwise,  up  to  the  time  of  his  baptism  or  entrance 
upon  his  public  ministry  his  consciousness  was  simply  that  of  a 
man,  without  any  recognition  of  either  his  great  mission  or  his 
divine  nature. 

Such  a  view  of  Christ  simplifies  the  interpretation  of  facts  in  his 
earlier  life.  It  would  equally  simplify  the  interpretation  thk  tiew 
of  many  facts  of  his  public  life  which  have  a  like  hu-  nestoriax. 
man  cast.  But  the  view  is  closely  kindred  to  the  Nestorian,  and 
may  easily  lead  to  a  perversion  of  doctrine  respecting  the  person  of 
Christ.  If  we  start  with  the  assumption  of  a  purely  human  con- 
sciousness, and  so  of  a  purely  human  person  of  Christ,  we  may 
carry  the  same  assumption  through  his  whole  life,  and  he  shall  be 
to  us  two  persons,  after  the  Nestorian  manner.  Even  with  the  ad- 
mission of  a  deeper  consciousness  of  the  divine  in  the  later  life  of 
Christ,  it  might  still  be  denied  that  this  was  the  result  of  a  personal 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  him.  Indeed,  this  union  is  denied  so 
long  as  we  hold  a  distinct  human  consciousness  of  Christ.  While 
this  view  could  readily  interpret  some  facts  of  his  life,  it  cannot 
interpret  the  communion  of  divine  and  human  facts  in  his  personal 
oneness.  This  personal  oneness  in  the  union  of  the  two  natures 
lies  in  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation.  In  personality  Christ  is 
God-man.  This  is  the  only  doctrine  which  can  interpret  and  har- 
monize the  Christological  facts  of  Scripture.  There  is  no  dis- 
tinctively human  Christ,  and  therefore  no  distinctively  human  con- 
sciousness of  the  divine  in  Christ. 

3.  Divine  Consciousness  of  the  Human. — In  the  incarnation  the 
divine  Son  so  took  the  nature  of  man  into  personal  union  with 
himself  as  to  enter  into  the  consciousness  of  trials  like  our  own. 
The  facts  of  the  incarnation,  as  given  in  the  Scriptures  and  ac- 
cepted in  the  faith  of  the  Church,  mean  such  a  consciousness.  The 
self-incarnating  Son  was  himself  complete  in  personality,  but  the 
human  nature  which  he  assumed,  while  complete  as  a  nature,  was 
without  personality.  The  personality  of  the  Son  was  ^^^  ^^^^  ^^^^ 
not  neutralized;  nor  were  his  personal  attributes  com-  son  ally  ijc 
pressed  into  the  measure  of  the  human.  Wherein,  then,  ^^'*'^'''- 
lies  the  reality  of  the  incarnation?  Not  in  a  personality  of  Christ 
distinct  from  the  personality  of  the  Son.  There  is  no  such  a  per- 
sonality, and  to  assume  it  is  to  deny  the  reality  of  the  incarnation. 
Nor  is  this  reality  to  be  found  in  the  entrance  of  a  human  person 
into  such  a  union  with  the  divine  nature  as  to  attain  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  divine  in  Christ.     There  is  no  such  a  person  in  Christ. 

>  Luke  ii,  46,  47. 


40  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Such  a  consciousness  would  be  a  purely  human  consciousness,  and 
therefore  could  not  answer  for  the  reality  of  the  incarnation.  The 
INCARNATION  incamatiou  was  a  divine  act,  not  a  human  act;  and  if 
A  DIVINE  ACT.  ^g  would  apprchcud  its  reality  we  must  view  it  on  its 
divine  side.  Here  is  the  great  truth  which  we  previously  considered. 
In  the  incarnation  the  divine  Son  entered  personally  into  the  nature  of 
man  in  a  manner  to  enter  into  the  consciousness  of  trials  like  our  own. 
This  is  the  deepest  and  most  luminous  truth  of  the  divine  incarnation. 

The  divine  consciousness  of  the  human  is  an  intrinsic  fact  of  the 
theanthropic  character  of  Christ.  As  we  previously  pointed  out, 
he  is  theanthropic  in  his  personality,  not  in  his  natures.  In  his 
natures  he  is  divine  a7id  human,  but  in  the  unity  of  personality 
he  is  divine-human,  God-man.  In  the  unity  of  personality  there 
must  be  a  unity  of  consciousness,  but  in  a  theanthropic  conscious- 
ness there  must  be  both  divine  and  human  facts.  In  the  thean- 
thropic consciousness  of  Christ  the  divine  facts  come  with  the 
divinity  of  the  Son;  the  human  facts,  through  the  human  nature 
in  which  he  was  personally  incarnated. 

3.  A  Fossihility  of  the  Divine  Consciousness. — A  great  mystery  ! 
But  the  divine  consciousness  of  facts  in  the  form  of  human  expe- 
riences is  no  greater  a  mystery  than  the  incarnation  itself.  Indeed, 
the  profoundest  mystery  of  the  incarnation  lies  in  the  union  of  the 
divine  and  human  natures  in  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ.  The 
^  o  ^     divine  is  thus  brought  into  new  relations.     Through 

NEW  FACTS  OF  <=  ,  ° 

CONSCIOUS-  new  relations  there  may  be  new  facts  of  consciousness. 
NESS.  Thie,  is  often  exemplified  in  human  experience.     An 

angel,  existing  in  pure  spirituality,  or  in  a  corporeity  wholly  without 
sensitivity,  might  still  have  the  consciousness  of  many  facts,  but 
must  be  without  many  such  as  we  have.  Such  an  angel  might  be- 
come enshrined  in  a  bodily  organism,  just  in  the  manner  of  a  human 
spirit,  without  any  suspension  of  personal  consciousness,  but  not 
without  many  new  facts  of  experience  in  the  form  of  our  own.  So 
in  the  incarnation  the  divine  Son  may  have  the  consciousness  of 
facts  in  the  form  of  human  experiences.  We  are  in  possession 
of  no  light  or  principle  which  can  warrant  a  denial  of  the  possibil- 
^ity  of  such  facts.  They  must  be  actual  in  the  very  reality  of  the 
divine  incarnation. 

There  is  a  sympathy  in  God  which  must  witness  for  the  truth 
which  we  here  maintain.  As  in  our  own  nature  there  is  a  power  of 
MEANING  OF  ^J^P^^^j  f^r  thc  dccpcr  action  of  which  common 
DIVINE  STM-  suffering  is  a  special  law,  so  in  the  very  nature  and 
love  of  God  there  is  a  sympathy  with  the  suffering  so 
true  and  deep  as  to  manifest  the  possibility  that  in  the  incarnation 


THE  SYMPATHY  OF  CHRIST.  41 

the  divine  Son  could  so  enter  into  the  forms  of  human  trial  as  to 
appropriate  this  special  law  of  sympathy  with  us.  God  is  not  the 
Absolute  of  speculative  agnosticism,  impersonal,  without  knowl- 
edge or  sensibility.  Even  our  speculative  theology  has  too  often 
removed  God  so  far  away  from  mankind  as  to  deny  to  them  his  real 
compassion,  or  invested  him  with  an  absoluteness  of  blessedness 
which  could  not  be  affected  by  either  the  joys  or  woes  of  men. 
God  is  not  such  a  being.  He  is  our  Father  in  heaven.  He  is  love. 
He  has  pleasure  in  our  happiness  and  sympathy  with  us  in  our  suf- 
fering. He  suffers  with  us.  This  is  the  meaning  of  his  compassion, 
which  the  Scriptures  so  frequently  and  earnestly  express. 

If  God  is  such  in  himself,  and  such  in  his  sympathy  with  us,  we 
should  not  stumble  at  the  doctrine  of  the  sympathy  of  Christ 
which  we  have  maintained.  The  chief  objection  urged  against  it  is 
that  it  is  contradictory  to  the  absolute  divine  blessedness.  This 
objection  vanishes  before  the  character  of  God  as  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures.  The  gift  of  the  Son  for  the  redemption  of  the  world 
means  a  stress  of  sacrifice  in  the  consciousness  of  the  ^  stress  of 
Father.  How  else  can  we  interpret  the  expressions  of  sacrifice. 
his  love  in  that  gift?  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son;  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us 
all ;  sent  his  own  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins.'  If  this 
gift  of  the  Son  was  without  stress  of  sacrifice  in  the  consciousness 
of  the  Father,  what  mean  these  intense  expressions  of  his  love  ? 
There  could  be  no  such  love  in  the  gift  of  the  Son  without  a  stress 
of  sacrifice  in  the  giving.  In  the  presence  of  such  a  fact  of  divine 
sacrifice  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  incarnate  Son  could  enter  into 
the  consciousness  of  trials  like  our  own,  and  so  appropriate  the 
deepest  law  of  sympathy  with  us. 

There  are  facts  in  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  which  mean,  and 
must  mean,  such  a  law  of  sympathy  with  us.  It  was  the  sacrifice  of 
Son  who,  though  he  was  rich,  for  our  sake  became  poor,  ™^  ^•^'^• 
that  we  through  his  poverty  might  be  rich  ;"  who  was  in  the  form  of 
God,  and  equal  with  him  in  glory,  but  parted  with  that  glory  and  took 
instead  the  form  of  a  servant  in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  humbled 
himself  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.'  In  these  facts  we 
must  admit  a  stress  of  sacrifice  infinitely  profound,  or  assume  an 
utter  indifference  of  the  Son  as  between  these  states.  If  the  state 
of  poverty  was  the  same  to  his  consciousness  as  the  state  of  riches 
which  he  surrendered,  the  form  of  a  servant  in  the  likeness  of  men 
the  same  as  the  glory  of  the  Father  in  which  he  dwelt  and  with 

'  John  iii,  16  ;  Rom.  viii,  33  ;  1  John  iv,  10. 
«  3  Cor.  viii,  9.  ^  p^ii,  a^  g-S. 


42  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

which  he  parted,  then  there  was  for  him  no  stress  of  sacrifice  in  the 
profound  facts  of  his  redeeming  work.  If  it  be  so,  what  can  these 
intense  words  mean  ?  Nothing  ;  really  nothing.  Indeed,  they  can 
mean  nothing  less  than  a  profound  sacrifice  of  the  Son  in  the  work 
of  redemption — a  sacrifice  fully  apprehended  in  his  divine  conscious- 
ness. 

Mostly,  our  orthodox  theology  lays  aright  the  foundation  of  ouy 
THE  SON  IS  soteriology.  The  Son  of  God,  truly  and  essentially 
SAVIOUR.  divine,  is  the  Saviour.     The  Scriptures  emphasize  the 

fact  that  the  Son  is  the  Saviour ;  ^  so  that  there  is  no  reason,  no 
excuse  even,  for  any  halting  or  divergence  at  this  point.  That  the 
Son  may  save  us  he  incarnates  himself  in  our  nature,  takes  it  into 
personal  union  with  himself.  Now,  the  Son  incarnate  is  the  Christ 
Jesus  of  the  Gospel  ;  a  theanthropic  person.  All  this  is  accepted 
and  maintained.      But   in   the  further  exposition  of 

FORGETTING  .  ^^       .         •        -,    •  i  ,>  ^  ■  i  • 

THE  REAL  our  sotcriology  Christ  m  his  work  of  redemption  begins 
TRUTH.  ^^  appear  quite  distinct  from  the  person  of  the  Son. 

It  is  forgotten  that  there  is  no  theanthropic  Christ  except  as  the 
incarnate  Son  enters  into  the  consciousness  of  experiences  like  our 
own.  Even  the  possibility  of  such  a  consciousness  is  denied.  Then 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  begins  to  be  viewed  as  a  human  person, 
quite  distinct  from  the  divine  nature,  and  as  the  conscious  subject, 
and  the  only  conscious  subject,  of  the  vicarious  sufferings  whereby 
the  world  was  redeemed.  This  is  a  wide  departure  from  the  ac- 
cepted doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  ends  in  the  notion  of 
the  redemption  of  the  world  by  the  sacrifice  of  a  man.  It  was  not 
a  man,  but  his  own  Son,  that  the  Father  sent  to  be  the  Saviour  of 
the  world  ;  and  the  Son  was  consciously  present  and  operative  in 
all  the  work  of  its  redemption  ;  consciously  participant  in  the  deep- 
est sorrows  of  Gethsemane  and  in  that  bitterest  outcry  on  Calvary. 
All  this  is  in  the  accepted  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  in  the 
reality  of  the  divine  incarnation,  and  in  the  sense  of  Scripture. 

We  have  no  insight  into  the  mystery  of  such  facts.  They  lie  in 
MYSTERY  OF  tlic  dcptlis  of  thc  divluc  incarnation.  We  attempt  no 
THE  PACTS.  philosophy  of  the  manner  in  which  the  divine  Son 
entered  into  the  consciousness  of  trials  like  our  own.  We  do  not 
even  intimate  any  form  of  physical  pain,  such  as  we  suffer.  We 
simply  maintain  the  deep  and  manifest  truth  of  Scripture,  that  in 
the  incarnation  the  divine  Son  entered  into  the  consciousness  of 
trials  like  our  own,  and  through  such  trials  appropriated  the  deep- 
est law  of  sympathy  with  us. 

4.  Ileal  Ground  of  the  Sympathy  of  Christ. — We  thus  reach  the 
'  John  iii,  16,  17  ;  1  John  iv,  9,  14. 


THE  SYMPATHY  OP  CHRIST.  43 

very  sure  ground  of  the  sympathy  of  Christ  as  it  is  revealed 
in  the  Scriptures  and  apprehended  in  the  deepest  Christian 
thought  and  feeling.  This  ground  does  not  lie  in  the  experi- 
ences of  a  mere  human  consciousness,  with  all  the  limitations 
and  disabilities  of  the  human.  Nor  is  it  subject  to  the  law  of 
time  and  changing  conditions,  as  the  grounds  of  all  human  sym- 
pathy must  be.  The  trials  of  Christ  which  constitute  the  ground 
of  his  sympathy  have  their  place  in  his  theanthropic  conscious- 
ness. Therein  they  ever  abide,  and  for  all  the  requirements  of 
his  sympathy  are  living  facts  still,  just  as  they  were  in  the  hours 
of  his  trial. 

Such  a  sympathy  of  Christ  is  sufficient  for  its  place  in  the  Script- 
ures and  for  the  exigencies  of  Christian  experience,  a  sufficient 
It  is  free  from  all  the  limitations  of  a  merely  human  ground. 
sympathy,  and  with  its  grateful  ministries  can  reach  all  cases  of 
need.  Mere  human  sympathy,  even  in  its  deepest  intensity,  must 
often  consume  itself  in  kindly  yearnings  while  it  is  powerless  for 
any  effective  ministry.  Many  could  weep  with  Martha  and  Mary, 
but  could  not  reach  the  depth  of  their  grief.  Jesus  wept,  and 
turned  .their  sorrow  into  joy.  In  him  an  infinite  efficiency  com- 
bines with  an  infinite  depth  of  sympathy. 

5.  Light  on  the  Person  of  Christ. — It  should  be  remembered 
that  we  took  the  sympathy  of  Christ  into  our  discussion,  not  only 
because  it  is  an  important  truth  of  Christology,  but  specially  for 
the  reason  of  its  intimate  relation  to  the  question  of  his  personal- 
ity. In  the  progress  of  the  discussion  we  have  seen  that  this 
relation  is,  indeed,  most  intimate.  We  found  that  his  sympathy  is 
grounded  in  a  law  of  common  suffering  with  us.  In  law  of  his 
iiis  life  we  found  many  facts  of  trial  and  suffering  in  sympathy. 
the  likeness  of  our  own  ;  but  a  deeper  study  discovered  their  insuffi- 
ciency for  the  requirements  of  his  sympathy,  if  they  are  restricted 
to  a  mere  human  consciousness.  In  this  case  his  sympathy  could 
be  only  human,  and  therefore  utterly  insufficient  for  its  place  in  the 
Scriptures  and  for  the  needs  of  Christian  experience.  We  further 
found  that  only  as  these  forms  of  trial  and  suffering  were  appre- 
hended in  a  divine  consciousness  could  they  constitute  in  Christ 
a  sufficient  ground  for  his  sympathy. 

It  is  here  that  we  find  in  the  sympathy  of  Christ  the  true  doctrine 
of  his  personality.  He  must  be  a  theanthropic  person,  ms  true  per- 
else  he  could  not  have  the  consciousness  of  trial  and  s^'^'^'-ity. 
suffering  which  is  necessary  to  his  sympathy.  He  is  a  theanthropic 
person  as  in  personal  oneness  he  unites  a  human  nature  with  his 
divine  nature  and  through  the  human  enters  into  the  consciousness 


44  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  trial  and  suffering  like  our  own.     The  theanthropic  conscious- 
ness of  Christ  is  the  central  truth  of  his  personality. 

Literature. — Pearson  :  Eocposition  of  the  Creed,  articles  ii,  iii  ;  Hooker  :  Ec- 
clesiastical Polity,  book  v,  sees.  51-54  ;  Waterland  :  The  Athanasian  Creed, 
Works,  vol.  iii ;  Owen  :  The  Person  of  Christ,  Works  (Goold's),  vol.  i  ; 
Martensen  :  Christian  Dogmatics,  sees.  135-147  ;  Domer  :  System  of  Christian 
Doctrine,  vol.  iii  ;  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ  ;  Luthardt :  The  Saving 
Truths  of  Christianity,  lect.  iv  ;  Usher  :  On  the  Incarnation  ;  Hovey  :  God 
With  Us  ;  Wilberforce  :  On  the  Incarnation  ;  Pope  :  The  Person  of  Christ  ; 
Gess  :  The  Person  of  Christ  ;  Goodwin,  Henry  M. :  Christ  and  Humanity  ; 
Goodwin,  Thomas  :  Christ  the  Mediator  ;  Schmid:  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New 
Testament,  part  i  ;  Ullmann  :  The  Sinlessness  of  Jesus  ;  Bruce  :  The  Humilia- 
tion of  Christ ;  Plumptre  :  Christ  and  Christendom,  Boyle  Lectures,  1867;  Medd : 
The  One  Mediator,  Bampton  Lectures,  1882  ;  Du  Bose  :  The  Soteriology  of  the 
New  Testament  ;  Gore  :  The  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  Bampton  Lectures, 
1891  ;  Schaff  :  The  Person  of  Christ  ;  Neander  :  History  of  the  Church,  vol. 
ii,  pp.  424-557  ;  Hefele  :  History  of  Church  Councils,  book  xi. 


EUKORS  IN  CIIRISTOLOGY.  45 


CHAPTER  V. 

LEADING  ERRORS  IN  CHRISTOLOGY. 

The  treatment  of  Christological  errors  is  specially  the  work  of 
historical  theology  ;  yet  some  attention  to  them  is  proper  in  a  system 
of  doctrines.  We  may  thus  set  in  a  clearer  light  the  true  doctrine 
of  the  person  of  Christ.  However,  a  brief  presentation  of  the  lead- 
ing errors  is  all  that  we  require  and  all  that  we  attempt. 

I.   Earlier  Errors. 

While  it  is  convenient  to  make  the  general  distinction  between 
the  earlier  and  later  Christological  errors,  a  chronological  order  is 
not  important  in  the  treatment  of  the  errors  as  classed  in  the  two 
divisions.  Here  it  is  better  to  observe,  as  far  as  practicable,  a  log- 
ical order. 

1.  Ebionism. — The  Ebionites  were  probably  so  named  by  an 
opprobrious  application  to  them  of  a  Hebrew  word  which  means 
poor ;  but  not  on  account  of  their  low  and  impoverished  views  of 
Christ,  as  some  have  held.  Ebionism  Avas  a  strongly  Judaized  form 
of  Christianity.     This  is  true  as  a  general  characteriza-  several 

tion.     However,  Ebionism  represents  several  sects,  with  sects. 

different  Christological  tenets.  There  were  two  leading  sects:  the 
Essene  and  the  Pharisaic.  The  Essene  Ebionites  held  the  Mosaic 
law  to  be  obligatory  on  all  Jewish  Christians,  but  did  not  require 
its  observance  by  Gentile  Christians.  Therefore  they  accepted  the 
apostleship  and  teaching  of  St.  Paul.  The  Pharisaic  Ebionites 
held  that  all  Christians  must  observe  the  law  of  Moses,  the  Gentile 
no  less  than  the  Jewish.  Therefore  they  repudiated  the  apostleship 
and  teaching  of  St.  Paul.  They  were  his  virulent  and  persistent 
opposers  and  persecutors. 

Both  sects  held  Christ  to  be  the  promised  Messiah,  but  their 
notion  of  him  was  the  low,  secularized  notion  of  the  notion  op 
Jew.  But,  with  agreement  on  this  point,  the  two  sects  christ. 
differed  on  others.  The  Essene  held  the  miraculous  conception 
of  Christ,  while  the  Pharisaic  held  him  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary  by  natural  generation.  The  former  of  these  views  is  in  close 
identity  with  the  earlier  Socinianism ;  the  latter  in  a  like  identity 
with  a  more  modern  humanitarianism,  which  holds  Christ  to  be  a 


46  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

man,  just  as  others,  whatever  moral  superiority  may  be  conceded 
him.  With  these  statements  the  errors  of  Ebionism  in  Christology 
are  manifest.  The  divinity  of  Christ  and  the  divine  incarnation  in 
him  are  both  denied.' 

2.  Gnosticism. — No  doubt  the  term  Gnostic  had  its  ground  in 
the  Greek  word  yi'waic.  As  appropriated  by  the  Gnostics  it  meant 
the  profession  of  a  high  order  of  knowledge.  As  knowledge  is  pos- 
HiGH  PRETEN-  siblc,  such  a  claim  is  not  necessarily  groundless ;  but  it 
SIGNS.  jj^ay  mean,  and  with  the  Gnostics  did  mean,  the  pro- 

fession of  a  peculiar  insight  into  great  problems  which  lie  beyond 
the  grasj^  of  other  minds.  They  dealt  freely,  and  with  much  pre- 
tension of  knowledge,  with  the  profoundest  questions.  AVe  may 
instance  the  "s^^orld-ground  or  absolute  being  ;  all  secondary  or  finite 
existences ;  the  mode  of  their  derivation  from  the  absolute  ;  the 
origin  of  evil  and  the  mode  of  the  world's  redemption.  Mostly, 
however,  their  treatment  of  these  great  questions  was  in  a  purely 
speculative  mode.  Hypothesis  and  deduction  were  in  the  freest 
use.  Deduction,  however,  must  be  kept  within  its  own  sphere,  and 
proceed  only  from  grounds  or  principles  of  unquestionable  truth. 
The  Gnostics  were  heedless  of  these  imperative  laws,  carried  their 
speculations  into  spheres  where  induction  is  the  only  appropriate 
method,  and  proceeded  from  the  merest  hypotheses  or  assumptions. 
With  such  methods  in  view  the  vagaries  of  Gnosticism  should 
cause  no  surprise. 

Gnosticism  divided  into  various  schools.  This  was  an  inevitable 
VARIOUS  consequence  of  its  purely  speculative  method.     It  was 

SCHOOLS.  also  made  certain  by  the  diverse  influences  to  which  its 

speculations  were  subject.  "  The  principal  sources  of  Gnosticism 
may  probably  be  summed  up  in  these  three.  To  Platonism,  modi- 
fied by  Judaism,  it  owed  much  of  its  philosophical  form  and  tend- 
encies. To  the  dualism  of  the  Persian  religion  it  owed  one  form 
at  least  of  its  speculations  on  the  origin  and  remedy  of  evil,  and 
many  of  the  details  of  its  doctrine  of  emanations.  To  the  Bud- 
dhism of  India,  modified  again  probably  by  Platonism,  it  was  in- 
debted for  the  doctrines  of  the  antagonism  between  spirit  and  mat- 
ter and  the  unreality  of  derived  existence  (the  germ  of  the  Gnostic 
Docetism),  and,  in  part  at  least,  for  the  theory  which  regards  the 
universe  as  a  series  of   successive   emanations  from  the  absolute 

'  Burton:  Heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  Bampton  Lectures,  1829,  lect.  iii ; 
Reuss :  Christian  Theology  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  book  i,  chap,  ix  ;  Neander: 
History  of  the  Church,  vol.  i,  pp.  344-353  ;  Schaff  :  History  of  the  Christian 
Church,  vol.  li,  pp.  431-442,  1886  ;  Dorner :  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
div.  i,  vol.  1,  pp.  188-217. 


ERRORS  IN  CIIRISTOLOGY.  47 

unity."  '  Theories  would  thus  take  form  just  as  one  source  of  in- 
fluence or  another  predominated,  or  according  to  the  elements  com- 
bined in  their  construction. 

It  is  already  apparent  that  leading  tenets  of  the  Gnostic  heresy 
flourished  in  different  philosophies  long  before  the  Christian  era. 
As  a  heresy  in  Christianity  it  began  its  evil  work  while 

•J  -J  O  XT  WORK   IN 

the  apostles  yet  lived  and  wrote.  There  are  many  ref-  apostolic 
erences  to  it  in  the  Xew  Testament,  particularly  in  the  ^'■^"''^' 
writings  of  St.  John.  It  is  every-where  reprehended  as  false  in 
doctrine,  evil  in  practice,  and  corrupt  in  influence.  These  charac- 
terizations are  not  limited  to  its  evils  as  then  manifest,  but  are  pro- 
phetic of  far  greater  evils  in  a  future  not  remote.  The  truth  of  these 
prophecies  was  fully  verified  in  the  early  history  of  the  Church. 

There  were  two  principles  of  Gnosticism  which  led  to  an  utterly 
false  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ.  These  were  the  perterting 
tenets  of  emanation  and  the  intrinsically  evil  nature  of  principles. 
matter.  God  was  not  a  creator  of  the  universe,  but  the  source  of 
emanations.  In  this  mode  all  things  have  proceeded  from  him. 
But  this  process  is  on  a  descending  scale  ;  so  that  even 
the  first  emanation  must  be  inferior  to  the  original 
ground  of  all  things.  Hence,  wherever  Christ  is  placed  in  the 
scale  of  emanated  existences,  even  though  it  were  at  the  top,  he 
cannot  be  truly  divine.  The  other  tenet  that  matter  is  intrinsically 
evil,  and  corruptive  of  all  spiritual  being  in  contact  ev,l  natcre 
with  it,  was  common  to  the  different  schools  of  Gnosti-  *^^  matter. 
cism,  and  led  to  a  denial  of  the  divine  incarnation.  That  is. 
Gnosticism  denied  the  reality  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ. 
What  in  him  seemed  a  real  body  was  not  such  in  fact,  but  a  mere 
phantasm  or  appearance.  It  was  on  this  ground  that  the  Gnostics 
were  often  called  Docetse,  from  Sokeo,  to  seem  or  appear.  If  there 
was  no  reality  in  the  bodily  form  of  Christ,  of  course  there  was  no 
divine  incarnation  in  him. 

It  was  in  view  of  this  heresy  as  an  evil  already  at  work,  and  as 
seen  in  prophetic  vision,  soon  to  become  a  far  greater  nENorxcKD  in 
evil,  that  St.  John  opened  his  gospel  with  a  doctrine  of  «^'Riptcre. 
the  Logos,  which  could  mean  nothing  less  than  his  essential  divin- 
ity, and  asserted  in  a  manner  so  definite  the  reality  of  his  incar- 
nation.' It  was  in  the  same  view  that  he  wrote  in  his  epistles  : 
"  And  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  the  flesh  is  not  of  God  :  and  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist, 
whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  should  come ;  and  even  now  al- 
ready is  it  in  the  world."  "  For  many  deceivers  are  entered  into 
'  Mansel :   The  Gnostic  Heresies,  p.  32.  'John  i,  1-3,  14. 


48  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh. 
This  is  a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist. "' '  It  is  obvious  that  such 
texts  are  indirect  reprobation  of  certain  principles  of  the  Gnostics, 
which  determine  for  them  an  utterly  false  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ.  According  to  these  principles  he  could  be  neither  divine 
nor  an  incarnation  of  divinity  in  our  nature." 

3.  Arianism. — The  term  Arianism  was  derived  from  Arius,  who 
became  the  representative  of  certain  doctrinal  views  re- 
garded as  heretical.  Arius  was  a  presbyter  of  the  Church 
of  Alexandria,  early  in  the  fourth  century,  and  a  man  of  influence. 
He  set  forth  and  maintained  views  at  issue  with  the  accepted  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity;  but  the  real  point  of  the  issue  concerned  the  divinity 
of  the  Son.  When,  in  an  assembly  of  his  clergy,  Alexander,  Bishop 
HERETICAL  of  Alcxaudria,  maintained  the  eternity  of  the  Son, 
VIEWS.  Arius  openly  opposed  him,  and  maintained  that  in  the 

very  nature  of  his  relation  to  the  Father,  the  Son  could  not  be  eter- 
nal. This  position  could  not  remain  as  the  whole  adverse  view. 
It  involved  doctrinal  consequences  which  could  not  be  avoided,  and 
which,  therefore,  were  soon  accepted  and  maintained.  If  the  Son 
was  not  eternal,  then  there  was  a  time  when  he  was  not.  This 
consequence  was  accepted  and  avowed.  If  the  Son  was  not 
eternal,  then  his  existence  must  have  originated  in  an  optional 
will  of  the  Father,  and  either  in  the  mode  of  generation  or  in 
that  of  creation.  These  consequences  were  also  accepted;  but 
respecting  the  actual  mode  of  the  Son's  origin  the  earlier  Arian- 
ism was  vacillating  or  indefinite.  Later,  the  mode  of  creation  was 
more  in  favor.  Thus,  the  Son  was  held  to  be  of  creaturely  char- 
acter. The  departure  from  the  orthodox  faith  was  really  the  same, 
whichever  view  of  his  origin  was  maintained.  A  being  originat- 
ing in  time,  and  by  an  optional  act  of  God,  whatever  the  mode  of 
his  operation,  could  not  be  truly  divine.  This  consequence  was 
fully  accepted. 

The  results  of  these  views  respecting  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity 
RESULTS  oBTi-  ^nd  tlic  pcrsou  of  Christ  are  obvious.  They  are  utterly 
^^^-  subversive  of  both.     The  truth  of  the  Trinity  impera- 

tively requires  the  essential  divinity  of  the  Son.     He  must  be  con- 

'  1  John  iv,  3 ;  3  John  7. 

'^  Burton :  Heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  Bampton  Lectures,  1829  ;  Mansel  : 
The  Gnostic  Heresies  ;  Norton  :  History  of  the  Gnostics  ;  Lightfoot  :  Commen- 
tary on  Colossians,  pp.  73-113  ;  Ueberweg  :  History  of  Philosophy,  §  77  ;  Eeuss  : 
Christian  Theology  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  book  iii,  chaps,  ix,  x  ;  Neander  : 
History  of  the  Church,  vol.  i,  pp.  366-478  ;  Domer  ;  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of 
Christ,  div.  i,  vol.  i,  pp.  218-252  ;  King  :  The  Gnostics  and  their  Remains. 
An  appendix  to  King's  book  gives  very  fully  the  literature  of  the  subject. 


ERRORS  IN  CHRISTOLOGY.  49 

substantial  with  the  Father,  and  his  personal  subsistence  must  be 
in  the  mode  of  an  eternal  generation,  not  by  any  optional  act  of  the 
Father.  A  true  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  equally  requires 
the  essential  divinity  of  the  Son.  Hence  Ariauism  subverts  the 
deepest  truth  of  the  person  of  Christ.  When  the  Son  ^o  divine  in- 
is  reduced  to  a  temporal  existence,  to  a  finite  being,  to  carnation. 
the  plane  of  a  creature,  there  can  be  no  divine  incarnation  in 
Christ,  no  theanthropic  character  of  Christ.  No  attribution  of 
greatness  to  the  Son  can  obviate  these  consequences.  Arianism 
may  declare  him,  as  it  did,  the  head  of  creation,  and  far  above  all 
other  creatures,  so  far  as  to  be  like  God  ;  but  all  this  avails  nothing 
because  such  likeness  means,  and  is  intended  to  mean,  that  he  is 
not  God,  and  that  the  divine  nature  is  not  in  him.  No  more  relief 
comes  with  the  ascription  to  the  Son  of  the  whole  work  of  crea- 
tion. Relief  might  thus  come  if  this  work  were  allowed  to  mean 
what  it  really  means  for  the  divinity  of  the  Son  ;  but  there  is  no  re- 
lief so  long  as  Arianism  denies  his  divinity  and  reduces  him  to  the 
plane  of  a  creature.  The  contradictory  ascription  of  false  chris- 
the  work  of  creation  to  the  Son,  after  he  is  reduced  to  tology. 
the  plane  of  a  creature,  leaves  Arianism  in  the  utter  subversion  of 
the  truth  respecting  the  person  of  Christ. ' 

4.  Apollinarianism. — The  Apollinarian  Christology  was  so  named 
from  Apollinaris,  Bishop  of  Laodicea,  and  was  disseminated  in 
the  fourth  century.  Its  distinctive  characteristic  is  that  it  denies 
to  Christ  the  possession  of  a  human  mind.  Necessarily,  grounded  in 
therefore,  the  theory  grounded  itself  in  a  trichotomic  trichotomy. 
anthropology.  Man  was  assumed  to  consist  of  three  distinct  natures, 
body,  soul,  and  spirit — au)iia,  ^vxq,  -rrvevfia.  In  the  theory  body  and 
mind  were  held  in  their  usual  meaning  :  the  former  as  the  physical 
nature  ;  the  latter  as  the  rational  and  moral  nature.  The  peculiar- 
ity of  the  theory  was  in  the  meaning  given  to  the  psyche  or  soul. 
This  was  held  to  be  a  distinct  nature,  intermediate  between  the 
physical  and  mental,  and  the  seat  of  the  sensuous  or  animal  life. 
Provision  was  thus  made  for  the  theory  of  a  partial  incarnation. 
If  man  consists  of  three  distinct  natures  it  was  possible  that  in  the 
incarnation  the  Son  should  assume  two  of  these  natures  and  omit 
the  third.    It  was  assumed,  accordingly,  that  the  rational  and  moral 

'  Newman,  Cardinal  :  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century  ;  Gwatkin  :  The  Avian 
Controversy  ;  Waterland  :  Defense  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  ;  A  Second  Defense 
of  ChrisVs  Divinity,  Works,  vol.  ii ;  Cunningham :  Historical  Theology,  vol.  i, 
pp.  276-293  ;  Gieseler:  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i,  pp.  294-322;  SehafE :  His- 
tory of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  iii,  ^§  119-125,  1886;  Domer  :  Doctrine  of 
the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  i,  vol.  ii,  pp.  201-241. 


50  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

nature  was  omitted,  and  that  the  Son  united  with  himself  merely 
the  physical  and  psychic  natures  of  man. 

With  such  limitation  of  the  human  nature  assumed  in  the  incar- 
souRCE  OF  nation,  or  the  omission  of  the  mental  nature,  the  the- 
MENTAL  FACTS.  Qry  must  account  for  the  rational  and  moral  facts,  such 
as  have  a  human  cast,  in  the  life  of  Christ.  The  account  was  at- 
tempted on  the  assumption  that  the  incarnate  Logos  so  fulfilled  the 
functions  of  a  rational  mind  in  Christ  as  to  account  for  this  class 
of  facts  in  his  life. 

While  trichotomy  provides  for  a  partial  incarnation,  it  is  the 
necessary  ground  of  a  Christology  which  makes  such 

TRICHOTOMY  JO  OJ  ^  ^       ^ 

AND  CHRIS-  limitation  fundamental.  If  man  is  only  dichotomic  m 
TOLOGY.  j^-g  jjatures,  there  is  no  place  for  such  a  Christology. 

However,  the  refutation  of  Apollinarianism  is  not  to  be  most 
readily  achieved  through  the  refutation  of  trichotomy.  While  the 
Scriptures  are  seemingly  in  favor  of  dichotomy,  yet  they  are  not 
decisive,  as  appeared  in  our  discussion  of  that  question.  Nor  can 
the  question  be  concluded  in  any  scientific  or  philosophic  mode. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  here  a  fatal  weakness  of  the  Apollina- 
rian  Christology.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  unable  to  establish  the 
truth  of  trichotomy,  which  yet  is  its  necessary  ground.  In  the 
next  place,  the  established  truth  of  trichotomy  could  not  conclude 
the  Apollinarian  Christology  ;  indeed,  could  not  furnish  any  proof 
of  it. 

The  disproof  of  this  Christology  lies  in  the  historic  life  of  Christ. 
DISPROOF  OF  The  facts  of  a  rational  and  moral  life  in  the  cast  of  the 
THE  DOCTRINE,  humau  arc  as  manifest  therein  as  the  facts  of  a  psychic 
life,  as  here  distinguished  from  the  rational  and  moral.  The  pres- 
ence of  a  human  mind  in  Christ  is  the  necessary  ground  and  the 
only  rational  account  of  these  facts.  They  cannot  be  accounted 
for  simply  by  the  presence  of  the  incarnate  Logos.  To  assume  this 
possibility  would  be  to  assume  the  compression  of  his  divine  attri- 
butes into  the  limits  of  the  human,  after  the  manner  of  the  modern 
kenoticism.  Then  there  could  no  longer  be  a  divine  incarnation. 
The  humanization  of  the  Logos  in  Christ  contradicts  the  deepest 
truth  of  the  incarnation,  which  lies  in  the  divine  consciousness  of 
the  human.  If  the  divine  is  in  any  way  changed  into  the  human 
there  can  no  longer  be  a  divine  consciousness  of  the  human. 

The  reality  of  the  divine  incarnation  is  itself  the  disproof  of  the 
Apollinarian  Christology.     The  assumption  of  a  human 

DISPROOF        IN  J^^  O-'  i^  . 

THE  iNCARNA-  uaturc  wlthout  the  rational  mmd  could  not  be  an  mcar- 
'^^^^'  nation  in  the  nature  of  man.      The  mind  is  so  much  of 

man  that  without  it  there  is  no  true  human  nature.     Nor  could  the 


ERRORS  IN  CHKISTOLOGY.  51 

self-incarnating  Son,  with  such  limitation  of  the  nature  assumed,  so 
enter  into  the  consciousness  of  experiences  like  our  own  as  to  be 
in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  and  thus  appropriate  the  deepest 
law  of  his  sympathy  with  us.  Our  deepest  trials  and  our  deepest 
exigencies  of  experience  lie  in  our  rational  and  moral  nature ; 
therefore  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  take  this  nature  into  per- 
sonal union  with  himself.  Only  in  this  mode  could  he  share  the 
consciousness  of  such  experiences  and  so  appropriate  the  law  of  his 
profoundest  sympathy  with  us.' 

5.  Nestorianism. — The  term  Nestorianism  is  derived  from  the 
name  of  Nestorius,  and  means  the  doctrine  of  two  persons  in 
Christ.  This  doctrine  was  propagated  early  in  the  fifth  century, 
and  at  one  time  very  widely  prevailed,  particularly  in  the  Eastern 
Church.     Nestorius,  whose  name  is  so  responsibly  con- 

NFSTORIUS 

nected  with  the  doctrine,  was  a  presbyter  of  Antioch, 
and,  later.  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  a  man  of  eminence  and 
moral  worth.  However,  he  was  not  the  author  of  the  Christolog- 
ical  view  so  directly  connected  with  his  name.  The  true  author- 
ship was  with  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  but  his  doctrine  found  able 
advocates  in  his  former  pupils,  Nestorius  and  Theodoret,  the  latter. 
Bishop  of  Cyrus. 

While  it  was  a  special  aim  of  the  Apollinarian  doctrine  to  make 
sure   of   the  oneness  of  the  person  of  Christ,  it  was 
equally  the  aim  of  the  Nestorian  doctrine  to  make  sure 
of  the  integrity  of  his  two  natures,  particularly  of  his  human  nat- 
ure.    Each  made  an  unnecessary  sacrifice  of  vital  truth  in  order 
to  the  attainment  of  its  aim  :  the  former,  of  the  integrity  of  the 
human  nature  of  Christ ;  the  latter,  of  the  unity  of  his  personality 
in  the  union  of  the  two  natures.     It  is  true  that  the       dualism  ix 
leaders  of  Nestorianism,  such  as  we  have  named,  claimed       Christ. 
to  hold  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ,  or  denied  the  dualism  with 
which  Cyril,  Archbishop  of  Alexandria,  and  others  charged  them. 
Cyril  was  their  chief  opponent.     Their  doctrine  of  the  union  of 
the  Logos  with  the  human  nature  in  Christ  fell  far  short  of  the  re- 
quirement of  his  personal  oneness,  and  left  the  human  in  the  mode 
of  a  distinct  and  complete  human  personality.  '  "  They  thkcnionxot 
called  it  an  inhabitation  ;  and  the  general  nature  of  the  personal. 
inhabitation,  as  distinct  from  that  by  which  God  dwells  in  all  men. 
through  his  omnipresent  essence  and  energy,  they  indicated  by  the 

'  Neander  :  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  iii,  pp.  428-434  ;  SchaflE  :  History  of 
the  Christian  Church,  vol.  iii,  ;^  136  ;  Plumptre  :  Christ  and  Christendom,  Ap- 
pendix H  ;  Hagenbach  :  History  of  Doctriiies,  §  99  ;  Domer  :  Doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ,  div.  i,  vol.  ii,  pp.  351-398. 


52  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

phrase  'by  good  pleasure'  {Kad'  ev6oKiav);  and  this  indwelling  by 
good  pleasure  in  Christ  they  further  discriminated  from  God's  in- 
dwelling in  other  good  men,  by  representing  it  as  attaining  in  him 
the  highest  possible  degree.  This  indwelling  of  the  Logos  in 
Christ  was  also  said  to  be  according  to  foreknowledge,  the  Logos 
choosing  the  man  Jesus  to  be  in  a  peculiar  sense  his  temple,  because 
he  knew  beforehand  what  manner  of  man  he  should  be.  .  .  . 
Among  other  phrases  current  in  the  same  school  were  such  as  these; 
union  by  conjunction  ;  union  by  relation,  as  in  the  case  of  husband 
and  wife ;  union  in  worth,  honor,  authority ;  union  by  consent  of 
will ;  union  by  community  of  name,  and  so  forth  ;  for  it  were  end- 
less to  enumerate  the  Nestorian  tropes  or  modes  of  union."  '  No 
NO  PERSONAL  such  unlon  of  the  divine  nature  with  the  human  as- 
oNENEss.  sumed   in  the  incarnation  is  here   expressed,  or  even 

allowed,  as  will  answer  for  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ.  There- 
fore, while  Nestorianism  might  repudiate  the  doctrine  of  two  per- 
sons in  Christ,  it  could  not  free  itself  from  the  implication  of  such 
a  doctrine. 

The  disproof  of  Nestorianism  lies  in  the  proofs  of  the  personal 
DISPROOF  OF  oneness  of  Christ  in  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human 
THE  THEORY,  natures.  These  proofs  were  given  in  the  treatment  of 
that  question  ;  hence  they  need  not  here  be  repeated.  Further,  this 
doctrine,  as  the  Apollinarian,  and  even  more  fully,  is  refuted  by 
the  reality  of  the  divine  incarnation.  The  great  texts  adduced  in 
the  treatment  of  that  question  mean,  and  must  mean,  that  the 
divine  Son  took  the  nature  of  man  into  a  personal  union  with  him- 
self ;  so  that  of  the  two  natures  so  united  there  is  one  Christ,  very 
God-man.  The  Nestorian  Christology  must  deny  the  reality  of  the 
divine  incarnation,  and,  therefore,  must  be  false  to  the  Christology 
of  the  Scriptures.^ 

6.  Eutychianism. — This  error  is  coupled  with  the  name  of  Euty- 
ches,  a  monk  without  other  distinction,  unless  we  reckon  to  his 
account  a  notable  lack  of  culture,  an  intense  love  of  debate,  and  an 
extreme  doggedness.  He  is  not  reckoned  the  author  of  this  Chris- 
tological  error,  though  he  may  have  contributed  something  toward 
its  extreme  form.  His  intense  activity  in  the  propagation  of  the 
doctrine  seems  to  be  the  only  reason  for  its  bearing  his  name. 

'  Bruce  :  The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  pp.  48,  49. 

^  Hefele  :  History  of  Church  Councils,  book  ix,  chaps,  i,  ii  ;  Schaff  :  History  of 
the  Christian  Church,  vol.  iii,  §§  137-139,  1886  ;  Neander  :  History  of  the  Church, 
vol.  ill,  pp.  446-524  ;  Cunningham :  Historical  Theology,  vol.  i,  pp.  315-320  r 
Gieseler  :  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i,  pp.  343-355  ;  Hagenbach  :  History  of  Doc 
trines,  §  100  ;  Domer  :  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  il,  vol.  i,  pp.  25-79. 


ERRORS  IN  CHRISTOLOGY.  53 

Eutychianism  is  monophysitic  as  it  respects  the  nature  of  Christ; 
that  is,  that  as  the  incarnate  Loeros  Christ  possessed  but 

_,    .  .  •  T  ,  .         1-    1^-  .         MONOPHYSITIC. 

one  nature.  This  view  was  in  direct  contradiction  to 
tlie  Chalcedonian  symbol,  which  so  formally  declared  that  in  him 
there  were  two  complete,  unmixed,  and  unchanged  natures,  the 
human  and  the  divine.  Eutychianism  admitted  the  reality  of  the 
divine  incarnation,  and  the  incipient  duality  of  the  natures,  but 
denied  that  their  distinction  remained  in  Christ.     Just  time  ok 

when,  and  in  what  mode,  the  distinction  ceased,  and  the  change. 

two  natures  became  one,  are  questions  on  which  the  doctrine  was 
quite  indefinite.  Respecting  the  time,  it  was  held  that  it  might 
have  been  instant  with  the  incarnation,  or  at  the  baptism  of  Christ, 
or  after  his  resurrection.  Nor  was  the  theory  less  in-  nature  of 
definite  respecting  the  change  in  the  natures  whereby  change. 
the  two  became  one.  Whether  the  divine  was  humanized,  or  the 
human  deified,  or  the  two  so  mixed  and  compounded  as  to  consti- 
tute a  nature  neither  human  nor  divine  was  not  determined,  though 
the  stronger  tendency  was  toward  the  view  of  the  deification  of  the 
human  nature.  In  this  view  Christ  was  wholly  divine.  The  hu- 
man nature  was  transmuted  into  the  divine,  or  absorbed  by  the 
divine,  as  a  drop  of  honey  is  absorbed  by  the  ocean.  Such  an  illus- 
tration was  in  frequent  use  for  the  expression  of  the  change  to 
which  the  human  nature  assumed  in  the  incarnation  was  subject 
and  the  monophysitic  result  determined.  Much  is  thus  expressed. 
The  drop  of  honey  absorbed  by  the  ocean  would  no  longer  be  a  drop 
of  honey ;  nor  would  it  be  distinguishable  from  the  body  of  the 
ocean.  Hence  the  frequent  use  of  such  an  illustration  fully  justi- 
fies our  statement,  that  the  doctrine  strongly  tended  to  the  view  of  a 
deification  of  the  human  nature  in  Christ. 

It  seems  quite  needless  to  subject  such  a  doctrine  to  the  tests  of 
criticism.  Unless  this  change  is  held  to  have  occurred  p^^sE  to 
at  least  as  late  as  the  ascension  of  Christ,  the  doctrine  is  christolog- 
openly  contradicted  by  the  daily  facts  of  his  life.  We 
may  as  readily  question  his  divinity  as  his  humanity.  His  life  is 
replete  with  facts  so  thoroughly  in  the  cast  of  the  human  that  he 
must  have  possessed  a  human  nature ;  for  otherwise  these  facts  have 
no  rational  or  possible  account.  Besides,  if  the  human  nature  as- 
sumed by  the  divine  was  so  transmuted  or  absorbed,  the  incarnation 
loses  its  own  true,  deep  meaning  and  assumes  a  purely  docetic  form. 
Thus  all  grounds  of  the  atonement  and  of  the  sympathy  of  Christ 
through  a  law  of  common  sujffering  with  us  are  utterly  swept  away. 
It  may  suffice  to  add  that  such  a  transmutation  of  the  human 
nature  into  the  divine  is  an  absolute  impossibility.  We  mean  by 
6 


54  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

this  that  it  is  not  within  the  power  of  God.  This  must  be  mani- 
fest to  any  mind  which  takes  the  proposition  into  clear  thought.' 

II.  Later  Errors. 

A  review  of  all  the  modern  phases  of  Christological  error  would 
be  tedious,  and  without  compensatory  result.  It  will  suflBce  that 
we  consider  some  of  the  leading  forms  of  such  error. 

1.  The  Socinian  CJmstology. — Socinianism,  as  a  system  of  theol- 
ogy, originated  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  took  its  designation 
from  Laelius  Socinus,  an  Italian,  but  who  spent  most  of  his  active 
life  in  Poland,  because  he  there  found  more  liberty  in  the  propaga- 
tion of  his  peculiar  doctrinal  views.  However,  while  the  original 
of  this  system  is  with  LebHus  Socinus,  his  nephew,  Faustus  Soci- 
nus, born  1539,  more  fully  developed  and  propagated  it,  and 
first  formed  the  converts  to  this  faith  into  a  distinct  religious 
body,  so  that  he  may  properly  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  founders  of 
Socinianism. 

We  here  need  only  the  most  summary  statement  of  its  doctrinal 
tenets.  Mostly,  the  Scriptures  were  admitted  to  be  of 
divme  origin,  but  rather  as  containing  than  as  being  a 
divine  revelation.  A  strong  rationalistic  jDrinciple  was  held  as  a  law 
of  biblical  exegesis.  It  was  in  this  mode  that  Socinianism  provided 
for  itself  so  much  liberty  of  interpretation,  that  it  might  the  easier 
wrest  the  Scriptures  from  the  proof  of  the  orthodox  faith  and 
maintain  its  own  opposing  views.  With  all  this  rationalism,  the 
earlier  Socinianism  admitted  the  supernatural  in  Christianity, 
particularly  in  its  Christology.  It  held  the  miraculous  conception 
of  Christ  ;  that  he  was  the  subject  of  supernatural  moral  and  spir- 
itual endowments,  and  that  he  was  temporarily  taken  to  heaven 
in  order  to  a  better  preparation  for  his  great  work  in  the  redemption 
of  the  world.  As  Socinianism  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ,  so  it 
denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Its  anthropology  was  Pelagian, 
and  its  soteriology  admitted  no  other  ground  or  power  of  human 
salvation  than  the  moral  influence  of  the  life  and  lessons  of  Christ. 

With  these  tenets  of  doctrine  in  hand,  the  Christology  of  the 
THECHRisTOL-  systcm  is  easily  stated.  With  all  the  concession  of 
■^^^-  supernatural  facts,  as  previously  stated,  the  Christ  of 

Socinianism  is  a  man,  nothing  more.  True,  he  was  declared  to 
be  more  than  man,  but  no  sufficient  ground  was  given,  or  even 

'  Hefele  :  History  of  Church  Councils,  book  x,  chap,  ii ;  Neander :  History 
of  the  Church,  vol.  iii,  pp.  504-511;  Schaff  :  History  of  the  Christian  Church, 
vol.  iii,  §§  140-145,  1886  ;  Hooker  :  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  v,  §§  53-54  ; 
Dorner :  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii,  vol.  i,  pp.  79-119. 


ERRORS  IN  CHRISTOLOGY.  55 

admitted,  for  the  truth  of  the  declaration.  No  supernatural  fact  con- 
ceded, nor  all  combined,  could  I'aise  him  in  his  own  nature  or  being 
above  the  plane  of  the  human.  No  other  ground  is  given  for  the 
assertion  that  he  was  more  than  man.  In  its  Christology,  therefore, 
8ocinianism  was  substantially  the  same  as  the  old  Ebionism.  In 
many  instances  of  its  later  purely  rationalistic  or  Unitarian  forms 
it  has  degenerated  from  the  higher  views  of  Christ  with  which  it 
began. 

The  Christology  of  Socinianism  is  utterly  false  to  the  Christology 
of  the    Scriptures.     It   denies  the  divinity  of  Christ  ;  f^lse  to  the 
the  reality  of  the  divine  incarnation  ;  the  union  of  the  scriptlres. 
two  natures  in  the  personal  oneness   of  Christ.     All  ground  of  the 
atonement  is  excluded  from  the  system.' 

2.  The  Lutheran  Christologi/. — This  error  lies  in  the  ascription 
of  divine  attributes,  particularly  of  omnipresence,  to  the  human  nat- 
ure of  Christ.  Only  in  an  omnipresence  or,  at  least,  multipresence 
of  his  human  nature  could  the  Lutheran  Christology  answer  to  the 
doctrine  of  consubstantiation — the  doctrine  of  the  presence  and 
communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  of  the 
supper.  If  in  this  supper  the  communicants  really  partake  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  then  in  some  real  sense,  however  obscure 
its  mode,  he  must  be  present  in  his  human  nature,  and,  therefore, 
he  must  be  present  in  many  places  at  the  same  time.  This  is  not 
denied  by  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  ;  indeed, 
it  is  affirmed. 

It  has  often  been  said  by  divines  who  controvert  the  Christology 
of  the  Lutherans  that  its  construction  was  determined  jj^latiox  to 
by  the  requirements  of  their  doctrine  of  the  real  pres-  conscbstan- 
ence.  Lutherans,  however,  deny  this,  and  maintain 
t'lat  their  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  was  constructed  directly 
upon  the  ground  of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  the  proper  interpreta- 
tion of  their  Christological  facts ;  yet  it  is  admitted  that  the  one 
doctrine  confirms  the  other  and  sets  it  in  a  clearer  light.  Thus, 
Dr.  Gerhart  having  maintained  that  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Christ  *^was  developed  from  the  Lutheran  theory  of 
the  sacrament,"  '  Dr.  Krauth  replies  :  *'  If  Dr.  Gerhart  means  no 

'  Dorner  :  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii,  vol.  ii,  pp.  249-265  ; 
Cunningham  :  Historical  Theology,  chap,  xxiii ;  Owen  :  Works  (Goold's),  vol. 
xii.  The  utter  falsity  of  this  and  all  other  forms  of  Christology  grounded  in 
the  mere  humanity  of  Christ  is  fully  shown  in  discussions  of  the  Trinity  and 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  to  which  reference  was  given  under  our  own  treatment 
of  these  questions. 

«  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1863. 


56  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

more  than  that  God  in  his  providence  made  the  discussions  in 
VIEW  OF  regard   to  the  Lord's  Supper  the  means  of  bringing 

KRAUTH,  more  fully  and  harmoniously  into  a  well-defined  con- 

sciousness and  into  clearer  expression  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures 
in  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ,  we  do  not  object  to  it ;  but  if  he 
means  that  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  the  person  of  Christ  orig- 
inated in  the  necessity  of  defending  her  doctrine  in  regard  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  we  think  he  is  wholly  mistaken.  The  doctrine  of 
our  Church  rests  upon  the  direct  testimony  of  God's  word ;  and  her 
interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  that  word  is  not  one  of  her  own 
devising,  but  had  been  given  ages  before  her  great  distinctive  con- 
fession, by  the  fathers  and  councils  of  the  pure  Church." ' 

Theologians  of  any  distinct  Christian  communion  have  the  right 
STATING  THEIR  of  statlug  thcir  own  case  on  any  such  issue  ;  but 
OWN  CASE.  lY^Qj  hare  no  final  authority.  That  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  was  the  doctrine  of  the  early  fa- 
thers and  councils  is  rejected  as  groundless.  Further,  it  is  in  the 
truth  of  doctrinal  history  that  the  Christology  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  ever  been  associated  with  her  doctrine  of  the  real  pres- 
ence of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  of  the  supper,  and  that  mostly  the 
former  has  been  treated  as  secondary  or  subordinate  to  the  latter. 
It  is  true  that  Dorner  concedes  to  Luther  a  construction  of  his 
Christology  independently  of  his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
but  he  also  says  this :  "  During  the  sixteenth  century  it  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  supper  that  gave  its  direction  and  character  to  the 
concrete  development  of  Christology."*  '  The  Lutheran  doctrine  is 
greatly  lacking  in  clearness.  Nor  is  this  to  be  thought  strange, 
especially  in  view  of  its  peculiar  tenets. 

Further,  Lutherans  have  dijffered  widely  among  themselves,  and 
DOCTRINAL  ^^is  fact  grcatly .hluders  the  clear  apprehension  of  the 
DIFFERENCES,  doctrinc.  The  contentions  on  this  question  within  the 
Lutheran  Church  were  quite  equal  to  those  which  she  maintained 
with  Papists,  Zwinglians,  and  Calvinists.  There  were  two  schools 
of  special  prominence  in  these  interior  doctrinal  issues  :  one  in  the 
following  of  Brentz  ;  the  other  in  the  following  of  Chemnitz. 
There  were  other  schools,  each  with  its  own  doctrine,  and  for 
which  it  contended  against  all  opposing  views.  Among  the  con- 
tending parties  there  were  real  differences  of  doctrine.  These 
contentions  were  fruitful  of  much  evil.  This  came  to  be  so  clearly 
seen  and  deeply  felt  as  to  awaken  an  intense  desire  for  peace  and  a 
harmony  of  doctrinal  views.     The  attainment  of  these  ends  was 

'  The  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theology,  p.  502. 
^  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii,  vol.  ii,  p.  301. 


I 


ERRORS  IN  CIIRISTOLOGY.  57 

earnestly  attempted.  The  Formula  of  Concord  was  the  product  of 
this  endeavor.  The  aim  was  good,  but  the  result  brought  little  satis- 
faction. The  desiderated  concord  was  not  attained.  Divisions  were 
rather  increased  than  diminished.  There  was  still  a  Brentzian  doc- 
trine, and  still  a  Chemnitziau  doctrine.  Others  were  added,  notably  a 
(jiiessen  doctrine,  and  a  Tilbingen  doctrine.  There  were  others,  but 
enough  have  been  named  to  show  the  persistence  and  prevalence  of 
the  strife.  These  facts  of  division  and  disputation  not  only  hinder 
the  clear  apprehension  of  the  Lutheran  Christology,  but  clearly 
point  to  peculiar  difficulties  of  the  doctrine,  and  really  disprove  it. 

Where  shall  we  find  the  doctrine  ?  Naturally,  we  turn  first  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession ;  but  it  is  not  given  in  the  looking  for 
article  which  directly  concerns  this  question.'  In  the  the  doctrine. 
article  on  the  Lord's  Supper  some  facts  are  given  which,  if  true  in 
themselves,  must  be  determinative  of  some  vital  elements  of  the 
doctrine.*  We  note  specially  the  alleged  facts  that  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present  with  the  bread  and  wine,  and  are 
communicated  to  those  who  partake  of  the  supper.  But  the  deter- 
mination of  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  from  the  contents 
of  this  article  would  subordinate  it  to  the  doctrine  of  the  supper  in 
a  manner  to  which  Lutheran  divines  strongly  object. 

The  Formula  of  Concord,  while  giving  a  later  formulation  of  the 
doctrine,  and  the  latest  with  any  claim  to  authority,  formula  of 
still  leaves  us  in  uncertainty,  and  for  two  reasons  :  one,  concord. 
that  this  statement  was  a  compromise  among  opposing  parties  ;  the 
other,  that  it  has  not  been  held  in  any  unity  of  faith.  Yet  we  know 
not  any  better  source  to  which  we  may  look  for  the  Lutheran  doctrine. 

Much  of  the  article  on  the  person  of  Christ  is  in  full  accord  with 
the   Chalcedonian    symbol,    but   it   contains   elements  article 

which  are  peculiar  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine.^     These  eight. 

appear  in  the  ascription  of  divine  attributes  to  the  human  n"ature 
of  Christ.  It  is  not  meant  that  the  human  nature  is  deified  in  any 
Eutychian  sense,  but  that  by  virtue  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures 
in  Christ  the  human  possesses  the  attributes  of  the  di-  oommdnicatio 
vine.  This  is  the  sense  of  the  communicatio  idioma-  'd'omatum. 
turn,  the  communion  of  the  attributes  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ. 
It  seems  obvious  that,  if  the  union  is  such  that  the  human  should 
possess  the  attributes  of  the  divine,  then,  conversely,  the  divine 
should  possess  the  attributes  of  the  human.  This,  however,  is  de- 
nied. Omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  ubiquity  are  the  divine  attri- 
butes which  are  more  specially  ascribed  to'  the  human  nature  of 
Christ.     "Therefore  now  not  only  as  God,  but  also  as  man,  he 

'  Article  iii.  *  Article  x.  '  Article  viii. 

6 


58  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

knows  all  things,  can  do  all  things,  is  present  to  all  creatures,  has 
nnder  his  feet  and  in  his  hand  all  things  which  are  in  heaven,  in 
the  earth,  and  under  the  earth."  These  facts  are  central  to  the 
Christology  of  the  article,  and  other  facts  affirmed  are  in  full  accord 
with  them.  "  What  the  divine  has  in  its  essence  and  of  itself,  the 
human  has  and  exercises  through  the  divine,  in  consequence  of  its 
personal  union  with  it.  We  might  imitate  one  of  our  Lord's  own 
deep  expressions  in  characterizing  it,  and  might  suppose  him  to  say: 
*  As  my  divine  nature  hath  omnipresence  in  itself,  so  hath  it  given 
to  my  human  nature  to  have  omnipresence  in  itself.""  If  the 
union  of  the  two  natures  is  valid  ground  for  the  omnipresence  of 
the  human,  the  same  union  must  be  equally  valid  for  its  omniscience 
and  omnipotence. 

The  statement  of  such  a  doctrine  seems  entirely  sufficient  for  its 
refutation.  The  human  nature  assumed  by  the  Logos 
in  the  incarnation  remained  human,  with  the  attributes 
of  the  human.  In  itself  it  possessed  the  capacity  for  only  such 
knowledge,  power,  and  presence  as  are  possible  to  the  human. 
How  then  could  it  become  omniscient,  omnipotent,  and  omni- 
present ?  The  answer  is,  through  the  divine  nature  with  which  it 
was  united.  But  if  this  union  answers  for  such  results,  either  it 
must  give  to  the  finite  attributes  of  the  human  nature  the  plenitude 
of  the  infinite,  or  invest  that  nature  with  the  attributes  of  the  infi- 
nite. Attributes  of  knowledge,  power,  and  presence,  such  as  we 
here  contemplate,  are  concrete  realities  of  being,  not  mere  notions 
or  names.  There  can  be  neither  knowledge,  nor  power,  nor  pres- 
ence without  the  appropriate  attribute  of  being.  The  being  must 
answer  for  the  character  of  the  attribute,  and  the  attribute  must 
answer  for  all  that  is  affirmed  of  it.  Only  a  mind  possessing  the 
power  of  absolute  knowing  can  be  omniscient.  Omnipotence  must 
have  its  ground  in  a  will  of  absolute  power.  Omnipresence,  such  as 
the  Lutheran  Christology  affirms  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  is 
possible  only  with  an  infinite  extension  of  being.  Hence,  either 
the  finite  attributes  of  the  human  nature  assumed  by  the  Logos 
must  be  lifted  into  the  infinitude  of  the  divine  attributes,  or  the 
divine  attributes  must  be  invested  in  the  human  nature,  which  is 
intrinsically  finite,  and  which  in  itself,  even  as  the  Lutheran 
Christology  concedes,  must  ever  remain  finite. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  the  doctrine  encounters  insuperable  diffi- 

AssuMED  iM-    culties,  even  absolute  impossibilities.     There  is  no  pos- 

possiBiLiTiEs.    sibility  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  should  possess 

the  attributes  of   omniscience,    omnipotence,    and   omnipresence 

'  Krauth  :  The  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theology,  p.  479. 


ERRORS  IN  CHRISTOLOGY.  59 

which  the  Lutheran  Christology  ascribes  to  it.  It  is  properly  re- 
garded as  an  axiom  that  the  finite  has  not  a  capacity  for  the  infi- 
nite—;A'w//?^w  non  capax  infiniti.  The  principle  is  absolutely  true 
in  application  to  the  points  which  we  here  make.  The  finite  attri- 
butes of  the  human  nature  can  neither  be  enlarged  to  the  infinitude 
of  the  divine  attributes  nor  receive  into  themselves  the* plenitude 
of  the  divine.  Neither  can  the  finite  nature  of  man  receive  the 
investment  of  these  divine  attributes.  But  there  can  be  no  om- 
niscience without  the  attribute  of  absolute  knowing  ;  no  omnipo- 
tence without  a  will  of  absolute  power ;  no  omnipresence  of  being 
without  an  infinite  extension.  Here  are  the  impossibilities  which 
the  Lutheran  Christology  encounters  in  the  ascription  of  such 
attributes  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,' 

3.  The  Kenotic  Christology. — The  seed-thought  of  kenoticism  in 
Christology  is  credited  to  Zinzendorf,  but  it  remained  fruitless  for 
a  long  time  after  he  cast  it  forth.  In  later  years  his.  thought  has 
been  developed  into  doctrinal  form.  Indeed,  there  are  several 
forms  of  this  development.  Professor  Bruce  has  carefully  noted 
four  leading  types  of  the  doctrine,  as  severally  represented  by 
Thomasius,  Gess,  Ebrard,  and  Martensen.*^  With  this  classifica- 
tion he  proceeds  to  a  careful  statement  and  critical  review  of  each 
type.  A  study  of  this  discussion  is  helpful  toward  a  clear  insight 
into  the  kenotic  Christology.  We,  however,  are  mainly  concerned 
with  the  deeper  tenets  of  the  doctrine. 

Kenoticism  is  the  doctrine  that  in  the  incarnation  the  Logos 
emptied  himself  of  his  divine  attributes,  or  compressed 

•  T  /.      1         1  ±1       i     1  '''"E  DOCTRINE. 

them  into  the  measure  and  cast  of  the  human ;  that  he 
parted  with  his  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  omnipresence,  and 
subjected  himself  to  the  limitations  of  a  merely  human  life.     These 
are  the  central  ideas  of  the  doctrine,  though  not  all  kenoticists 
hold  so  extreme  a  view. 

Whether  in  the  incarnation  the  Logos  assumed  a  human  soul  as 
well  as  a  body,  or  whether  in  his  own  humanized  form  respkcting  a 
he  fulfilled  the  functions  of  a  human  soul  in  the  life  human  soul. 
of  Christ,  is  a  question  on  which  kenoticists  are  not  agreed.  The 
admission  of  a  distinct  human  soul  must  mean,  for  this  doctrine, 
the  co-existence  of  two  souls  in  Christ — two  not  different  in  tlieir 
human  cast.     In  this  case  there  could  be  no  personal  oneness  of 

'  Domer  :  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii,  vol.  ii,  pp.  53-115 ; 
266-315  ;  Schmid  :  Doctrinal  Theology  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  §  55  ; 
Gerhart :  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1863  ;  Krauth  :  The  Conservative  Reforma- 
tion and  its  Theology,  article  x. 

'^  Bruce  :  The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  lect.  iv. 


60  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Christ.  On  the  other  hand,  the  denial  of  a  distinct  human  soul 
must  mean  a  denial  of  the  divine  incarnation.  The  reality  of  such 
an  incarnation  cannot  lie  in  the  assumption  of  a  mere  body  of  flesh 
and  blood.  Certainly  such  a  limitation  could  not  answer  to  the 
sense  of  the  Scriptures  respecting  this  profound  truth. 

This  kenoticism  has  really  no  ground  in  Scripture,  though  it 
NO  GROUND  IN  assumcs  such  ground.  The  proofs  which  it  brings  are 
SCRIPTURE.  jiot  proofs,  because  it  is  only  by  an  unwarranted  inter- 
pretation of  the  texts  adduced  that  they  can  give  any  support  to 
the  theory.  We  give  a  few  instances.  "  And  the  Word  was  made 
flesh."  '  This  cannot  mean  any  transmutation  of  the  divine  Logos 
into  a  body  of  human  flesh.  Much  less  can  it  mean  a  transforma- 
tion of  the  Logos  into  a  man,  for  this  is  much  farther  away  from  a 
literal  sense  than  the  former.  The  meaning  is  simply  that  in  the 
incarnation  the  Logos  invested  himself  in  a  human  nature,  of  which 
a  body  of  flesh  is  the  visible  part.  This  interpretation  places  the 
text  in  complete  accord  with  other  texts  of  the  incarnation.  Here 
are  other  instances  :  "  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh."  *  "  Foras- 
much then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also 
himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same."'  These  texts  give  the 
same  doctrine  of  the  incarnation,  but  without  any  suggestion  of 
the  transformation  of  the  Son  into  a  man.  That  the  Logos  was 
made  flesh  can  mean  nothing  more  than  these  texts. 

The  special  reliance  of  the  theory  is  on  a  passage  from  St.  Paul: 
THK  SPECIAL  ^' Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  counted  it  not  a 
TEXT.  prize  to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,  but  emptied  himself, 

taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men."  * 
We  have  cited  the  Revised  Version,  it  being  more  literal  than  the 
Authorized.  We  gave  the  meaning  of  this  text  in  the  treatment 
of  the  incarnation,  and  therefore  require  the  less  in  considering  its 
application  to  the  present  question. 

"  Being  in  the  form  of  God "  must  mean  an  existence  of  the 
iNTERPRETA-  Sou  cithcr  in  the  nature  of  God  or  in  the  glory  of  God. 
TioN.  jf  ^]^g  former  be  the  true  sense,  then,  on  the  ground  of 

his  divine  nature,  an  equality  of  glory  with  the  Father  was  his 
rightful  possession.  If  the  latter  be  the  true  sense,  then  we  have 
simply  the  fact  that  the  Son  rightfully  existed  in  the  full  glory 
of  God.  It  should  be  specially  noted  that  this  estate  of  glory  was 
not  his  merely  in  right,  but  his  in  actual  possession.  This  mean- 
ing is  in  the  words,  ''  counted  it  not  a  prize  to  be  on  an  equality 
with  God,  but  emptied  himself."  This  accords  with  another  text : 
^'  And  now,  0  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with 

'  John  i,  14.  '  1  Tim.  iii,  16.  '  Heb.  ii,  14.  *  Phil,  ii,  6,  7. 


ERRORS  IN  CIIRISTOLOGY.  61 

the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was." '  Here  the 
clear  meaning  is  that  the  Son  actually  existed  in  the  glory  of  the 
Father  prior  to  his  incarnation.  8uch  is  the  sense  of  the  great 
text  now  under  special  consideration. 

What,  then,  is  the  truth  of  the  kenosis  in  this  case  ?  The  Son 
emptied  himself — tovrdv  e/ctvwae.  But  of  what  ? 
Surely  not  of  his  divine  nature,  nor  of  his  divine  per- 
fections, which  are  inseparable  from  his  nature.  Nor  can  this  act 
of  kenosis  mean  the  compression  of  his  perfections  into  the  cast  and 
measure  of  mere  human  powers.  Such  an  idea  seems  utterly  foreign 
to  any  idea  which  the  terms  of  the  text  either  express  or  imply. 
This  act  of  kenosis  has  respect  to  that  estate  of  glory  which,  on  the 
ground  of  his  divine  nature,  the  Son  rightfully  possessed  in  equality 
with  the  Father.  It  means  a  self-emptying  or  self-divestment  of 
that  glory.  This  accords  with  his  own  words  as  previously  cited  : 
*'  And  now,  0  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with 
the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was."  That  glory 
he  once  possessed,  but  had  surrendered.  The  surrender  was  by 
the  act  of  kenosis  which  we  have  in  the  text  under  special  consid- 
eration. This  interpretation  brings  all  the  parts  of  the  text  into 
complete  harmony.  The  form  of  a  servant  in  the  likeness  of  men, 
Avhich  the  Son  assumed  in  the  incarnation,  stands  in  clear  antithe- 
sis, not  with  his  divine  nature  and  perfections,  but  with  the  estate 
of  glory  which  he  possessed  with  the  Father  ;  which  glory  he  might 
have  rightfully  retained,  but  with  which  he  freely  parted,  and  took 
instead  the  form  of  a  servant  in  the  likeness  of  men.  The  text 
gives  no  support  to  the  kenotic  Christology. 

The  aim  of  kenoticism  is  twofold:  to  secure  the  unity  of  the  per- 
son of  Christ,  and  to  provide  for  the  human  facts  of  aim  of  keno- 
his  life.  The  self-limitation  of  the  Son  in  the  incar-  ticism. 
nation  to  a  mere  human  cast  and  measure  is  held  to  be  necessary  to 
the  personal  oneness  of  Christ,  and  to  the  reality  of  the  human 
facts  of  his  intramundane  or  historic  life.  The  personal  oneness  is 
declared  to  be  impossible  on  the  ground  of  the  traditional  doctrine 
of  the  divine  incarnation.  It  is  readily  conceded  that  this  per- 
sonal oneness  is  incomprehensible  ;  but  surely  the  the  mystery 
mystery  is  riot  solved  nor  in  the  least  relieved  by  the  remains. 
theory  of  a  humanized  Logos  as  co-existent  with  a  human  soul  in 
Christ.  A  duality  of  persons  seems  absolutely  inseparable  from 
such  a  co-existence  ;  and  this  attempt  to  secure  and  explain  the 
personal  oneness  of  Christ  is  utterly  futile.  Further :  if,  as  we 
formerly  pointed  out,  the  deepest  truth  of  the  incarnation  lies  in 

'  John  xvii,  5. 


62  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  divine  consciousness  of  the  hnman,  may  not  this  question  of 
personal  oneness  have  for  us  less  pressing  concern  than  we  usually 
concede  it  ?  All  that  we  require  is  such  a  relation  of  the  divine  to  the 
human  in  Christ  as  will  provide  for  this  consciousness.  And  may 
there  not  be  such  a  relation  without  the  rigid  unity  of  personality 
which  is  usually  maintained  ?  Let  it  be  observed,  however,  that, 
in  this  hypothetical  putting  of  the  case,  we  do  not  yield  the  doctrine 
of  the  personal  oneness  of  Christ.  But  on  the  ground  of  this  ke- 
noticism  there  could  be  no  divine  consciousness  of  the  human  in  the 
incarnation,  because  the  humanized  Logos  could  no  longer  have  any 
divine  consciousness. 

The  implications  of  this  doctrine  of  the  kenosis  in  Christology 
are  contrary  to  the  deepest  truths  of  Christian  theology. 

IMPLICATIONS  "^  ^  ...  . 

OF  THE  DOC-  If  the  Son  of  God  could  part  with  his  divine  attributes 
TRINE.  ^^.  jj^^^anize  himself,  then  divinity  itself  must  be  muta- 

ble. This  consequence  can  be  denied  only  on  a  denial  of  the  divin- 
ity of  the  Son.  But  his  divinity  is  conceded  in  the  very  idea  of 
his  self-divestment  of  his  divine  attributes.  The  theory  is  subver- 
sive of  the  divine  Trinity.  The  humanized  Son,  self-emptied  of  his 
divine  attributes,  could  no  longer  be  a  divine  subsistence  in  the  Trin- 
ity. Hence  this  kenosis  of  the  Son  must  mean  the  destruction  of 
the  Trinity.  The  theory  is  not  less  subversive  of  other  funda- 
mental truths  of  Christian  theology.  No  ground  of  an  atonement 
in  the  blood  of  Christ  could  remain.  That  the  Son  once  existed  in 
the  divine  Trinity,  and  in  the  plenitude  of  the  divine  life,  could 
avail  nothing  for  such  an  atonement.  If  self-reduced  to  the  meas- 
ure of  a  man,  his  death  could  be  no  more  saving  than  the  death 
of  a  man.  No  ground  of  the  sympathy  of  Christ  could  remain,  as 
that  sympathy  is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  as  it  must  be  in 
order  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  Christian  experience.  Such  a  sym- 
pathy we  have  found  to  be  possible  only  through  the  divine  con- 
sciousness of  human  experiences  of  suffering  and  trial.  But  there 
can  be  no  such  consciousness  in  the  mere  human  consciousness  to 
which  this  kenoticism  limits  the  incarnate  Logos.  A  theory  with 
such  implications  can  have  no  ground  of  truth  in  the  Scriptures. ' 

'  Bruce  :  The  Humiliation  of  Christ  ;  Pope  :  The  Person  of  Christ,  note  viii  ; 
Goodwin  :  Christ  and  Humanity ;  Martensen  :  Christian  Dogmatics,  pp.  237-288  ; 
Crosby  :  The  True  Humanity  of  Christ  ;  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  430-440 ;  Gess  :  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  Translation 
and  additions  by  Reubelt.  This  work  and  Bruce's  Humiliation  of  Christ  are 
specially  useful  in  the  study  of  this  question. 


PART  V. 

SOTERIOLOGY. 


SOTTERIOLOGY. 


the  atonement  in  christ. 
Preliminaries. 

The  great  facts  specially  distinctive  of  Christianity  lie  in  its 
soteriology.  Hence  this  is  the  part  of  theology  in  which  the  truth 
of  doctrine  most  deeply  concerns  us. 

1.  Soteriology. — The  term  soteriology  is  from  oojTTjpla  and  Xoyog, 
and  means  the  doctrine  of  salvation.      The  doctrine        two  great 
includes  two  great  facts  :  an  atonement  for  sin,  and  a        iacts. 
salvation  from  sin.     Underlying  these  facts  there  is  the  great  truth 
of  a  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  who  makes  the  atonement,  and  through 
its  provisions  accomplishes  the  salvation.     Hence  any  proper  ex- 
pression of  these  facts  of  Christian  soteriology  must 
recognize  their  vital  connection  with  him.     We  shall     lated  to 
attain  this  recognition  in   the  use   of   the    following     *^^'^'^'''- 
formulas  for  their  representation  :  the  atonement  in  Christ,  and 
the  salvation  in  Christ. 

2.  Atonement  as  Fact  and  Doctrine. — We  should  distinguish  be- 
tween the  fact  and  the  doctrine  of  atonement.  Are  the  vicarious 
sufferings  of  Christ  the  ground  of  forgiveness  and  salvation  ?  In 
what  sense  are  they  such  a  ground  ?  These  are  distinct  questions, 
and  open  to  distinct  answers.  The  first  concerns  the  fact  of  an 
atonement ;  the  second  concerns  its  nature.  Nor  does  an  affirma- 
tive answer  to  the  first  question  determine  the  answer  to  the  sec- 
ond. Were  this  so,  all  who  hold  the  fact  of  an  atonement  would 
agree  in  the  doctrine.  But  such  is  not  the  case.  Different  schemes 
of  theology,  while  in  the  fullest  accord  on  the  fact,  are  widely  diver- 
gent respecting  the  doctrine. 

Both  questions  are  important,  but  that  concerning  the  fact  is  the 
more  vital.  If  the  atonement  be  a  reality,  we  may  ac-  the  fact  the 
cept  it  in  faith,  and  receive  the  benefit  of  its  grace  be-  ^^^^  vital. 
fore  we  attain  its  philosophy.  So  accepted,  it  has  the  most  salutary 
influence  upon  the  religious  life.  To  this  both  the  experience  of 
individual  Christians  and  the  history  of  the  Church  bear  witness. 


66  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Yet  the  question  of  theory  is  far  from  being  an  indifferent  or 
IMPORTANCE  Dierelj  speculative  one.  The  atonement  is  most  f unda- 
•OF  THE  DOC-  mental  in  Christianity.  Hence  the  theory  of  it  must 
TRINE.  j^^i^  ^  commanding  position  in  any  system  of  Christian 

doctrine,  and  largely  draw  into  itself  the  interest  of  the  system. 
This  is  apjDarent  upon  a  reference  to  the  three  great  systems,  which 
may  be  designated  as  the  Arminian,  the  Calvinian,  and  the  Socin- 
ian.  As  are  other  cardinal  doctrines  of  each,  so  is  its  doctrine  of 
atonement,  or,  conversely,  as  its  doctrine  of  atonement,  so  are  its 
other  doctrines.  In  all  profounder  study  the  mind,  by  an  inevi- 
table tendency,  searches  for  a  philosophy  of  things.  There  is  the 
same  tendency  in  the  deeper  study  of  Christian  truth.  Thus,  be- 
yond the  fact  of  an  atonement,  we  search  for  a  doctrine.  We  seek 
to  understand  its  nature  ;  what  are  its  elements  of  atoning  value  ; 
how  it  is  the  ground  of  divine  forgiveness.  We  attempt  its  ra- 
tionale. It  must  have  a  philosophy ;  and  one  clear  to  the  divine 
mind,  whatever  obscurity  it  may  have  to  the  human.  Its  clear 
apprehension  would  be  helpful  to  faith  in  many  minds. ' 

3.  Relation  of  tJie  Doctrine  to  other  Doctrines. — That  a  doctrine 
of  atonement  must  fairly  interpret  the  facts  and  terms  of  Scripture 
in  which  it  is  expressed,  we  hold  to  be  an  imperative  law.  There 
SCIENTIFIC  AC-  ^^  ^^^  ^  ^^^  ^^  ^^^  Mghcst  authoHty  in  logical  method. 
coRDANCE  OF  It  Is  thc  law  of  a  scientific  accordance  in  intimately 
TRUTHS.  related  doctrinal  truths.     It  has  its  application  to  all 

scientific  systems,  and  to  the  science  of  theology  equally  as  to  any 
other.  In  any  and  every  system  truth  must  accord  with  truth.  In 
systematic  theology  doctrine  must  accord  with  doctrine.  Under 
this  law  a  doctrine  of  atonement  must  be  in  scientific  accord  with 
cardinal  doctrines  vitally  related  to  it.  This  law,  while  imperative, 
neither  leads  us  away  from  the  authority  of  Scripture  nor  lands  us 
in  a  sphere  of  mere  speculation.  All  Christian  doctrine,  to  be  true, 
must  be  scriptural.  Doctrines  in  a  system,  to  be  true,  must  be 
both  accordant  and  scriptural.  If  discordant  or  contradictory, 
some  one  or  more  must  be  both  unscriptural  and  false.  Hence  this 
law  of  a  scientific  accordance  in  vitally  related  truths  is  consistent 
with  the  profoundest  deference  to  the  authority  of  revelation  in  all 
questions  of  Christian  doctrine. 

This  law  may  render  valuable  service  in  the  construction  and  in- 

LAw  OF  DOC-  te^'pretation  of  Christian  doctrine.     As  we  may  inter- 

TRiNAL  INTER-  prct  Scripturc  by  Scripture,  so  may  we  interpret  doctrine 

R  TATioN.       i^y.  (joQ^pjjjg^     Only,  the  interpreting  doctrine  must  it- 

>self  be  certainly  scriptural.     As  such,  no  Christian  doctrine  can  be 

'  Eandles  :  Substitution  :  Atonement,  pp.  2,  3. 


SOTERIOLOGY:  ATONEMENT.  67 

out  of  accord  with  it.  In  any  distinction  of  standard  or  determin- 
ing doctrines,  preference  should  be  given  to  the  more  fundamental  ; 
especially  to  such  as  are  most  certainly  scriptural.  Accepting  such 
a  law  in  the  interpretation  of  atonement,  or  in  the  determination 
of  its  nature,  we  are  still  rendering  the  fullest  obedience  to  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  in  Christian  doctrine. 

In  the  line  of  these  facts  and  principles  this  law  may  be  of  special 
service  in  testing  different  theories  of  atonement,  as  ^ppnEo  to 
they  belong  to  different  systems  of  theology.  We  shall  thk  atoxe- 
the  better  understand  the  legitimacy  and  service  of  this 
application  if  we  hold  in  clear  view  the  two  leading  facts  previously 
noted,  that  in  any  system  of  Christian  theology  the  several  doc- 
trines, as  constituting  a  system,  must  be  in  scientific  agreement, 
and,  as  Christian,  must  be  scriptural.  Hence,  as  leading  doctrines 
of  the  system  are  true  or  false,  so  is  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
which  is  in  accord  with  them.  For  illustration  we  may  refer  to  the 
three  leading  systems  previously  named. 

If  other  peculiar  and  leading  doctrines  of  the  Socinian  theology 
be  true  and  scriptural,  so  is  its  atonement  of  moral  in-  ix  sociniax- 
fluence.  If  its  Christology  and  anthropology  be  true  's^'- 
and  scriptural,  this  atonement  is  in  full  harmony  with  the  system  ; 
and,  further,  is  the  only  one  which  it  needs  or  will  admit.  Clearly, 
it  cannot  admit  either  the  satisfaction  or  the  governmental  theory. 
Both  are  out  of  harmony  with  its  more  fundamental  and  determin- 
ing doctrines,  and  hence  are  excluded  by  the  law  of  a  necessary  ac- 
cordance of  such  truths  when  brought  into  scientific  relation.  The 
Socinian  scheme,  by  the  nature  of  its  anthropology  and  Christol- 
ogy, denies  the  need  of  such  an  atonement,  and  has  no  Christ  equal 
to  the  making  of  one.  But  if  on  the  leading  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity the  truth  is  with  the  Calvinistic  or  the  Arminian  system, 
then  the  Socinian  atonement  is  false.  It  is  so  out  of  harmony  with 
such  doctrines  that  it  cannot  be  true  while  they  are  true. 

If  other  cardinal  doctrines  of  Calvinism  are  true,  its  doctrine  of 
atonement  is  true.     It  is  an  integral  part  of  the  system, 

°  -^  •'  IN  CALVIXISM. 

and  in  full  harmony  with  every  other  part,  ihe  doc- 
trines of  divine  sovereignty  and  decrees,  of  unconditional  elec- 
tion to  salvation,  of  the  effectual  calling  and  final  perseverance  of 
the  elect,  and  that  their  salvation  is  monergistically  wrought  as  it 
is  sovereignly  decreed,  require  an  atonement  which  in  its  very  nat- 
ure is  and  must  be  effectual  in  the  salvation  of  all  for  whom  it  is 
made.  Such  an  atonement  the  system  has  in  the  absolute  substi- 
tution of  Christ,  both  in  precept  and  penalty,  in  behalf  of  the 
olect.    He  fulfills  the  righteousness  which  the  law  requires  of  them, 


k 


68  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

and  suffers  the  punishment  which  their  sins  deserve.  By  the  nat- 
ure of  the  substitution  both  must  go  to  their  account.  Such  a 
theory  of  atonement  is  in  scientific  accord  with  the  whole  system. 
And  the  truth  of  the  system  would  carry  with  it  the  truth  of  the 
theory.  It  can  admit  no  other  theory.  Nor  can  such  an  atone- 
ment be  true  if  the  system  be  false. 

If  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Arminian  system,  such  as  differ- 
iN  ARMINIAN-  sntiatc  it  from  Calvinism,  be  true,  then  the  atonement 
'^"-  of  satisfaction,  in  the  Calvinistic  sense  of  it,  cannot  be 

true.  If  the  atonement  is  really  for  all,  and  in  the  same  sense  suf- 
ficient for  all,  then  it  must  be  only  provisory,  and  its  saving  benefits 
really  conditional.  And  no  other  truths  are  more  deeply  wrought 
into  Arminianism,  whether  original  or  Wesleyan  ;  none  have  a  more 
uniform,  constant,  unqualified  Methodistic  utterance.  They  are 
such  facts  of  atonement,  or  facts  in  such  logical  relation  to  it,  that 
they  require  a  doctrine  in  scientific  agreement  with  themselves. 
Such  a  doctrine  is  the  special  aim  of  this  discussion — not  without 
regard  to  consistency  in  the  system,  but  specially  because  these 
facts  are  scriptural,  and  the  doctrine  agreeing  with  them  scriptural 
and  true. 

4.  Definition  of  the  Atonement. — A  true  doctrine  of  atonement 
can  be  fully  given  only  in  its  formal  exposition.  Yet  we  give  thus 
early  a  definition,  with  a  few  explanatory  notes,  that,  so  far  as 
practicable  by  such  means,  we  may  place  in  view  the  doctrine  which 
this  discussion  shall  maintain. 

Tlie  vicarious  sufferitigs  of  Christ  are  an  atonement  for  sin  as  a 
conditional  substitute  for  penalty ,  fulfilling ,  on  the  forgiveness  of 
sin,  the  obligation  of  justice  and  the  office  of  penalty  in  moral  gov- 
ernment. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  are  vicarioiis,  not  as  incidental  to  a 
philanthropic  or  reformatory  mission,  but  as  endured 
for  sinners  under  divine  judicial  condemnation,  that 
they  might  be  forgiven  and  saved. 

They  are  a  substitute  for  penalty,  not  as  the  punishment  of  sin 
suBSTiTu-  judicially  inflicted  upon  Christ,  but  in  such  rectoral 
TioNAL.  relation  to  justice  and  law  as  renders  them  a  true  and 

sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness. 

They  are  a  conditional  substitute  for  penalty,  as  a  provisory  meas- 
ure of  government,  rendering  forgiveness,  on  proper 
conditions,  consistent  with  the  obligations  of  justice  in 
moral  administration.  Subjects  of  the  atonement  are  none  the  less 
guilty  simply  on  that  account,  as  they  would  be  under  an  atone- 
ment by  penal  substitution,  wherein  Christ  suffered  the  judicial 


SOTERIOLOGY :  ATONEMENT.  60 

punishment  of  sin  in  satisfaction  of  an  absolute  retributive  justice. 
Under  a  provisory  substitution,  the  gracious  franchise  is  in  a  priv- 
ilege of  forgiveness,  to  be  realized  only  on  its  proper  conditions. 

Thus  the  substitution  of  Christ  in  snSermg  fulfills  the  obligation 
of  justice  mid  tlie  office  of  penalty  in  their  relation  to  kkctoralok- 
the  ends  of  moral  government.  Justice  has  an  impera-  ''''^*^- 
tive  obligation  respecting  these  ends;  and  penalty,  as  the  means 
of  justice,  a  necessary  office  for  their  attainment.  But  penalty,  as 
an  element  of  law,  is  the  means  of  good  government,  not  only  in 
its  imminence  or  execution,  but  also  through  the  moral  ideas  which 
it  expresses.  Hence  its  infliction  in  punishment  is  not  an  absolute 
necessity  to  the  ends  of  its  office.  The  rectoral  service  of  its  exe- 
cution may  be  substituted,  and  in  every  instance  of  forgiveness  is 
substituted,  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  The  interest  of  moral 
government  is  thereby  equally  conserved. 

The  e7ids  of  justice  thus  concerned  involve  the  profoundest  in- 
terests. They  include  the  honor  and  authority  of  God  ends  cox- 
as  ruler  in  the  moral  realm;  the  most  sacred  rights  and  served. 
the  highest  welfare  of  moral  beings;  the  utmost  attainable  restraint 
of  sin  and  promotion  of  righteousness.  Divine  justice  must  regard 
these  ends.  In  their  neglect  it  would  cease  to  be  justice.  It  must 
not  omit  their  protection  through  the  means  of  penalty,  except  on 
the  ground  of  such  provisory  substitute  as  will  render  forgiveness 
consistent  with  that  protection.  Such  a  substitute  is  found  only 
in  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ.  As  fully  answering  for  these 
ends,  his  sufferings  are  an  atonement  for  sin,  fulfilling,  on  forgive- 
ness, the  obligation  of  justice  and  the  office  of  penalty  in  moral 
government. 


70  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTEK  I. 

REALITY   OF   ATONEMENT. 

Ik  this  chapter  we  treat  the  atonement  simply  as  a  fact,  not  as  a 
doctrine.  The  sense  in  which  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ  con- 
stitutes the  objective  ground  of  divine  forgiveness  is  for  separate 
discussion. 

I.  WiTNEssiJs'^G  Facts. 

There  are  certain  facts  that  all  should  receive  as  scriptural,  how- 
ever diversely  they  may  be  interpreted.  We  claim  for  them  a 
decisive  testimony  to  the  reality  of  an  atonement  for  sin  in  the 
mediation  of  Christ. 

1.  A  Message  of  Salvation. — The  Gospel  is  pre-eminently  such 
a  message  to  a  sinful  and  lost  world.  Its  very  style  as  the  Gospel 
— rd  evayyeXiov — sets  it  forth  as  good  tidings.  It  is  "  the  glori- 
ous Gospel  of  the  blessed  God  ;" '  "  the  Gospel  of  the  grace  of 
God  ;""^  "  the  Gospel  of  salvation."^  A  free  overture  of  grace  in 
forgiveness  and  salvation  crowns  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

2.  Tlie  Salvation  in  Christ. — While  the  great  fact  of  Revelation 
is  the  mission  of  Christ,  the  great  purpose  of  this  mission  is  the 
salvation  of  sinners.  The  Scriptures  ever  witness  to  this  purpose, 
and  specially  reveal  Christ  as  the  Saviour.  The  angel  of  the  an- 
nunciation gave  charge  respecting  the  coming  Messiah  :  "  And 
thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus  :  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from 
their  sins."  *  The  announcement  of  the  blessed  advent  to  the 
shepherds  was  in  a  like  strain  :  "  And  the  angel  said  unto  them. 
Fear  not  :  for,  behold,  I  bring  you  good  tidings  of  great  Joy,  which 
shall  be  to  all  people.  For  unto  you  is  born  this  day  in  the  city  of 
David  a  Saviour,  which  is  Christ  the  Lord."  '  Additional  texts 
could  only  emphasize  these  explicit -utterances  of  the  salvation  in 
Christ.  "  For  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn 
the  world  ;  but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved."  ^ 
''This  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world."''  "And 
we  have  seen  and  do  testify  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world."  *     These  texts,  though  but  a  small  fraction 

'  1  Tim.  i,  11.  -  Acts  XX,  24.  ^Eph.  i,  13.  "  Matt,  i,  31. 

5  Luke  ii,  10,  11.  «  John  iii,  17.  •»  John  iv,  43,  «  1  John  iv,  14. 


REALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  71 

of  a  great  number,  are  sufficient  for  the  verification  of  the  fact  that 
the  salvation  so  freely  offered  in  the  Gospel  is  a  salvation  in  Christ. 

3.  Salvation  in  His  Suffering. — This  truth  is  declared  by  the 
very  many  texts  which  set  forth  the  mission  of  Christ  as 

*  PROOF-TFXTS 

the  Saviour  of  sinners.  They  are  so  numerous  that 
their  full  citation  would  fill  many  pages.  We  may  give  a  few  in 
part :  *'  But  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised 
for  our  iniquities :  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him ; 
and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed."  '  This  whole  chapter  is  full  of 
the  same  truth,  and  clearly  anticipates  the  higher  revelation  of 
the  New  Testament.  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitia- 
tion through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the 
remission  of  sins." '  "  Much  more  then,  being  now  justified  by  his 
blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him."  '  "  For  Christ 
also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he 
might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quick- 
ened by  the  Spirit."*  "And  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleans- 
eth  us  from  all  sin."  '  "  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests 
unto  God  and  his  Father  ;  to  him  be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever 
and  ever.  Amen."''  These  words,  so  explicitly  attributing  our 
salvation  to  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ,  might  well  be  heard 
as  from  the  very  borderland  between  the  earthly  and  heavenly 
states.  Then  like  words,  and  equally  explicit,  come  from  beyond  the 
border,  attributing  the  salvation  of  the  saintsin  heaven  to  the  same 
atoning  blood :  "  These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribula- 
tion, and  have  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb.  Therefore  are  they  before  the  throne  of  God, 
and  serve  him  day  and  night  in  his  temple."'  These  texts  suffi- 
ciently verify  this  third  fact  as  a  fact  of  Scripture,  that  the  salva- 
tion so  freely  offered  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ  is  a  salvation  provided 
in  his  suffering  and  death. 

4.  His  Redeeming  Death  Necessary. — The  vicarious  sacrifice  of 
Ciirist  was  not  a  primary  or  absolute  necessity,  but  only  necessary  to 
as  the  sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness.     And  not  only  salvation. 

is  salvation  directly  ascribed  to  his  blOod,  but  his  redeeming  death  is 
declared  to  be  necessary  to  this  salvation.  "  Thus  it  is  written,  and 
thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third 
day  :  and  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached 
in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem."*  Thus 
it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  not  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophetic 

'  Isa.  liii,  5.  ''  Rom.  iii,  25.         '  Rom.  v,  9.  "1  Pet.  iii,  18. 

'  1  John  i,  7.         »  Rev.  i,  5,  6.  ^  Rev.  vii,  14,  15.         «  Luke  xxiv,  46,  47. 


72  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Scriptures,  but  in  order  to  the  salvation  which,  long  before  his 
advent,  they  had  foretold  as  the  provision  of  his  vicarious  sacrifice. 
Only  on  the  ground  of  his  suffering  and  death  could  there  be  either 
the  preaching  of  repentance,  or  the  grace  of  repentance,  or  the 
remission  of  sins.  This  was  the  imperative  behoof.  "  Neither  is 
there  salvation  in  any  other:  for  there  is  none  other  name  under 
heaven  given  among  men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved."  '  The  em- 
phasis of  this  text  is  in  the  fact  that  these  things  are  affirmed  of  the 
ELSE  CHRIST  crucificd  Christ.  "  For  if  righteousness  come  by  the 
DIED  IN  VAIN,  law,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain.''*  In  the  context  St. 
Paul  is  asserting  his  own  realization  of  a  spiritual  life  through 
faith  in  Christ,  who  loved  him,  and  gave  himself  for  him.  This 
life  in  salvation  he  declares  to  be  impossible  by  the  law,  and  possi- 
ble only  through  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ.  Were  it  otherwise, 
Christ  has  died  in  vain.  The  necessity  for  his  redeeming  death  in 
order  to  forgiveness  and  salvation  could  not  be  affirmed  more  explic- 
itly, nor  with  deeper  emphasis.  "  For  if  there  had  been  a  law  given 
which  could  have  given  life,  verily  righteousness  should  have  been 
by  the  law."^  Here  is  the  same  truth  of  necessity.  Life  is  by  the 
redeeming  Christ,  and  has  no  other  possible  source. 

5.  Only  Exinlanation  of  His  Suffering. — The  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  for  no  sin  of  his  own.  Nor  were  they  officially  necessary,  ex- 
cept as  an  atonement  for  sin.  He  had  power  to  avert  them,  and  en- 
dured them  only  through  love  to  a  lost  world  and  in  filial  obedience 
to  his  Father's  will."  They  were  not  chosen  for  their  own  sake  on 
the  part  of  either,  but  only  in  the  interests  of  human  salvation. 
They  were  a  profound  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  both.  And  while  the 
Son  went  willingly  down  into  their  awful  depths  his  very  nature 
shrank  from  them.  Three  times  the  prayer  of  his  soul  was  poured 
out  to  his  loving  Father,  "  0  my  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this 
cup  pass  from  me."  "  There  must  have  been  some  deep  necessity 
for  his  drinking  it.  Clearly  that  necessity  lay  in  this — that  only 
thereby  could  salvation  be  brought  into  the  world.  And  these  suf- 
ferings of  the  redeeming  Son  witness  to  the  reality  of  an  atonement 
for  sin. 

6.  Necessity  of  Faith  to  Salvation. — The  facts  already  given  and 
verified  by  the  Scriptures  are  decisive  of  an  atonement  for  sin  in 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ.  They  go  beyond  its  reality  and 
conclude  its  necessity.  It  is  also  a  significant  fact,  and  one  bearing 
on  the  same  point,  that  faith  in  Christ,  and  as  the  redeeming  Christ, 
is  the  true  and  necessary  condition  of  forgiveness  and  salvation. 

'  Acts  iv,  12.  '  Gal.  ii,  21.  ^  Gal.  iii,  21. 

'•  John  X,  18.  5  Matt,  xxvi,  39,  42,  44. 


REALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  73 

Generally,  faith  in  Christ,  with  the  associated  idea  of  his  redeem- 
ing death,  is  set  forth  as  the  condition.  Proof-texts  are  ^he  great 
numerous  and  familiar.  We  may  instance  the  great  commission. 
commission  :  "  And  he  said  unto  them.  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."' 
As  Christ  laid  this  solemn  charge  upon  his  ministers  to  preach  the 
Gospel  in  all  the  world,  and  which  should  be  so  especially  the 
preaching  of  himself  crucified,  it  was  very  proper  and  profoundly 
important  that  he  should  distinctly  set  forth  the  condition  of  the 
great  salvation  so  proclaimed.  This  he  did  in  the  most  explicit 
terms.  Faith  in  Christ  is  the  condition  so  clearly  given.  This  is 
the  imperative  requirement.  And  the  Lord  emphasizes  the  fact  by 
declaring  the  different  consequences  of  believing  and  not  believing. 
We  may  add  another  text  in  this  general  view:  "  And  as  Moses 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
man  be  lifted  up  :  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  "  As  the  Israelites,  bitten  by  the 
fiery  serpents  and  ready  to  perish,  were  recovered  only  on  looking 
upon  the  brazen  serpent  which  Moses  lifted  up  in  the  midst  of  the 
camp,^  so  is  our  salvation  conditioned  on  our  faith  in  Christ  lifted 
up  upon  the  cross  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin. 

Yet  more  directly  is  this  fact  given:  ''Whom  God  hath  set  forth 
to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  de-  mork  specif- 
clare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  ically. 
past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God;  to  declare,  I  say,  at  this 
time  his  righteousness:  that  he  might  be  Just,  and  the  justifier 
of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus."*  Here  the  forgiveness  of  sin 
is  through  the  propitiatory  blood  of  Christ  as  its  ground,  and  on 
faith  therein  as  its  condition.  Such  is  the  economy  of  redemption, 
whereby  the  divine  righteousness  is  vindicated  in  the  Justification 
of  sinners. 

Faith  could  not  be  so  required  were  not  the  blood  of  Christ  a  true 
and  necessary  atonement  for  sin.  Were  repentance  a  the  faith 
sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness,  it  would  still  be  neces-  necessary. 
sary  to  believe  certain  religious  truths  for  the  sake  of  their  practical 
force.  Only  thus  could  there  be  a  true  repentance.  But  such  is 
not  the  faith  on  which  we  are  Justified.  There  is  a  clear  distinc- 
tion of  offices  in  the  two  cases.  The  faith  necessary  to  repentance 
is  operative  through  the  practical  force  of  the  religious  truths  which 
it  apprehends ;  but  the  Justifying  faith  apprehends  the  blood  of 

'  Mark  xvi,  15,  16.  '  John  iii,  14,  15. 

3  Num.  xxi,  7-9.  *  Rom.  iii,  25,  36. 

7  » 


V4  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Christ  as  a  propitiation  for  sin,  trusts  directly  therein,  and  receives 
forgiveness  as  the  immediate  gift  of  grace.  No  other  view  will 
interpret  the  Scriptures,  which  most  explicitly  give  us  the  truth  of 
justification  by  faith  in  Christ.^  The  justification  is  in  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  and  must  be,  as  it  is  the  justification  of  sinners.  And 
the  direct  and  necessary  connection  of  justification  with  faith  in 
the  redemption  of  Christ,  together  with  the  immediateness  of  the 
forgiveness  itself,  concludes  this  distinct  office  of  justifying  faith. 
Hence,  to  confound  such  a  faith  with  another  faith  in  Christ  as 
salutary  simply  through  the  practical  force  of  spiritual  truths  and 
motives  so  apprehended,  is  to  jumble  egregiously. 

There  is  such  a  practical  faith  in  Christ,  and  of  the  highest  moral 
^.  potency.     It  may  precede  or  follow  the  justifying  faith. 

PRACTICAL  It  apprehends  the  great  practical  lessons  embodied  in  the 
^^^™-  Gospel.     Their  apprehension  in  faith  is  the  necessary 

condition  of  their  practical  force.  The  soul  thus  opens  to  their 
moral  motives,  and  realizes  their  practical  influence.  This  is  the 
philosophy  of  a  chief  element  of  the  practical  power  of  faith.  It 
gives  the  law  of  moral  potency  in  all  practical  appeals  in  view  of 
the  love  of  God  and  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  the  redemptive  media- 
tion. Such  is  the  only  office  of  faith  in  the  scheme  of  moral  influ- 
ence. We  fully  accept  the  fact  of  a  great  practical  lesson  in  the 
mediation  of  Christ ;  and  our  own  doctrine  combines  the  weightiest 
elements  of  its  potency.  But  we  object  to  the  accounting  this  moral 
lesson,  however  valuable,  an  element  of  the  atonement  proper — most 
of  all,  the  very  atonement  itself.  This  is  the  error  of  the  theory  of 
moral  influence.  But  our  special  objection  to  this  view  here  is 
A  SPECIFIC  OF-  that  it  denies  a  distinct  office  of  faith  in  the  propitia- 
FicE  OF  FAITH,  tory  work  of  Christ  as  the  condition  of  justification. 
It  consistently  and  necessarily  does  this.  But  there  is  such  an 
office  of  faith,  and  one  clearly  distinguished  from  its  office  as  a 
practical  force  in  the  religious  life.  And  the  distinct  requirement 
of  faith  in  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ,  in  order  to  forgive- 
ness, is  conclusive  of  a  true  and  necessary  atonement  for  sin  in  his 
suffering  and  death. 

7.  Priesthood  and  Sacrifice. — The  priesthood  of  Christ  had  its 
prophetic  utterance:  '^The  Lord  hath  sworn,  and  will  not  repent, 
Thou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.*'"  But 
the  fullest  unfolding  of  his  priesthood  with  its  sacrificial  and  inter- 
cessory offices  is  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  :  "  Wherefore  in  all 
things  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he 
might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high-priest  in  things  pertaining 
'  Eom.  iii,  19-22 ;  iv,  5  ;  Gal.  ii,  16  ;  iii,  22-24.  » Psa.  ex.  4 


REALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  75 

to  God,  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people."  "See- 
ing then  that  we  have  a  great  high-priest,  that  is  passed  into  tlie 
heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  profession." 
"Now  of  the  things  which  we  have  spoken  this  is  the  sum:  "We 
have  such  a  high-priest,  who  is  set  on  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 
the  Majesty  in  the  heavens."  '  These  texts  will  suffice  for  what  is 
really  placed  beyond  question. 

As  it  was  an  office  of  the  priesthood,  under  the  law,  to  offer  sac- 
rifices in  atonement  for  sin,  so  Christ  as  our  high-priest  ms  sacriki- 
must  offer  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  This  is  not  a  mere  in-  cial  office. 
ference,  but  the  word  of  Scripture:  "For  every  high-priest  is  or- 
dained to  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices :  wherefore  it  is  of  necessity  that 
this  man  have  somewhat  also  to  offer."  ^ 

Nor  are  we  left  in  any  doubt  respecting  his  sacrifice.  He  offers 
up  himself.  The  fact  is  so  often  stated,  and  in  such  himself  a  sac- 
terms,  as  to  give  it  the  profoundest  significance.  R'^^e. 
"  Christ  also  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  himself  for  us  an  offer- 
ing and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet-smelling  savor."  ^  "Who 
needeth  not  daily,  as  those  high-priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice,  first 
for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's  :  for  this  he  did  once, 
when  he  offered  up  himself."*  "How  much  more  shall  the  blood 
of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot 
to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living 
Godi  '  "Nor  yet  that  he  should  offer  himself  often,  as  the  high- 
priest  entereth  into  the  holy  place  every  year  with  the  blood  of 
others;  for  then  must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of 
the  world:  but  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared 
to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."  ^  No  critical  exegesis 
is  required  to  find  in  these  texts  the  fact  of  an  atonement  in  the 
mediation  of  Christ. 

In  the  statements  respecting  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  there  are 
clear  references  to  the  ancient  sacrifices;  and  its  inter-    typical  sac- 
pretation  in  the  light  of  these  references  gives  us  the    R'f'CEs. 
same  fact  of  an  atonement.     But  we  shall  not  discuss  that  system; 
a  brief  reference  will  answer  for  our  purpose. 

The  great  annual  atonement  has  special  prominence.  Its  many 
rites,  divinely  prescribed  with  exactness  of  detail,  were  great anxial 
sacredly  observed.  Its  leading  facts  were  few  and  sim-  atonement. 
pie,  but  of  profound  significance.  The  high-priest  sacrificed 
a  bullock  in  atonement  for  himself  and  family,  and,  entering 
with   its   blood   into   the  holy  of  holies,  sprinkled   it   upon   the 

•  Heb.  ii,  17  ;  iv,  14  ;  viii,  1.        »  Heb.  viii,  3.  ^  gph.  v,  2. 

"■  Heb.  vii,  27.  '  Heb.  ix,  14,  25,  26 ;  see  also  chap,  x,  5-12. 


V6  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

mercy-seat.  Thus  he  found  access  into  the  divine  presence.  Then 
he  selected  two  goats  for  an  atonement  for  the  people.  One  he 
sacrificed,  and,  entering  with  its  blood  into  the  most  holy  place, 
sprinkled  it  upon  the  mercy-seat  before  the  Lord.  Then,  with  his 
hands  upon  the  head  of  the  other,  he  confessed  over  it  the  sins  of 
the  people,  and  sent  it  away  into  the  wilderness,  thus  signifying 
the  bearing  away  of  their  sins.'  Thus  the  high-priest  made  an 
atonement  for  sin.^ 

The  whole  idea  of  atonement  may  here  be  denied  on  an  assump- 
CLEAR  IDEA  OF  tlou  tliat  thc  mcaus  have  no  adequacy  to  the  end ;  that 
ATONEMENT.  j^  jg  jjot  lu  thc  uaturc  of  such  a  ceremony  or  such  a 
sacrifice  to  constitute  a  ground  of  forgiveness.  It  is  conceded  that 
there  is  therein  no  intrinsic  atonement.  This,  indeed,  is  the  Script- 
ure view.^  But  the  idea  of  atonement  is  not  therefore  wanting. 
The  divine  reconciliation  is  real,  the  forgiveness  of  sin  actual,  but 
on  the  ground  of  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ — "the  Lamb  slain 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world."*  His  atonement  was  not  yet 
formally  made,  but  already  existed  as  a  provision  of  the  redemptive 
economy,  and  as  efficacious  for  salvation.  And  the  idea  of  atone- 
ment is  as  real  in  the  typical  sacrifice  as  in  that  which  is  intrin- 
sically sufficient.  Otherwise,  the  Levitical  atonement  has  no 
typical  office,  and  hence  is  utterly  inexplicable.  We  have  thus 
the  idea  of  atonement  in  the  Levitical  sacrifices,  and  the  fact 
of  a  real  atonement  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  former  were 
an  atonement  for  sin  only  typically,  not  efficaciously;  while 
the  latter,  represented  by  them,  and  the  ground  of  their  accept- 
ance, is  intrinsically  the  atonement.  As  divinely  appointed  in 
their  sacrificial  office,  and  typical  therein  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
they  give  decisive  testimony  to  the  fact  of  an  atonement  in  his 
death. ^ 

The  intercession  of  Christ  in  a  priestly  office  fulfilled  in  heaven 
INTERCESSION  IS  a  fact  clcarly  given  in  the  Scriptures:  "Who  is  he 
IN  HEAVEN.  ^}jg^^  condemneth  ?  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea  rather, 
that  is  risen  again,  who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also 
maketh  intercession  for  us.'^  °  "  Neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and 
calves,  but  by  his  own  blood  he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place, 
having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us."  "For  Christ  is  not 
entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures 
of  the  true ;  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence 
of  God  for  us."' 

'  Lev.  xvi,  5-23.  '  John  Pye  Smith  :  Sacrifice  and  Priesthood,  pp.  246,  247. 
3  Heb.  X,  1-lL  *  Eev.  xiii,  8.  *  Heb.  ix,  8-12  ;  x,  1.  « Rom.  viii,  34. 
'  Heb.  ix,  12,  24. 


REALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  77 

Now  mere  intercession  does  not  prove  atonement;  but  such  inter- 
cession does.  It  is  in  the  order  of  the  priestly  office  of  provesatone- 
Christ.  This  is  clear  from  the  texts  cited,  especially  "''■''''• 
with  their  connections.  It  follows  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  himself, 
and  with  clear  reference  to  the  service  of  the  Levitical  atonement. 
As  the  high-priest  entered  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  into  the 
most  holy  place,  and  sprinkled  it  upon  the  mercy-seat,  the  very 
place  of  the  divine  presence  and  propitiation;  so  Christ  entered 
with  his  own  blood — not  literally  with  it,  but  with  its  atoning  vir- 
tue and  the  tokens  of  his  sacrifice — into  heaven  itself,  into  the 
very  presence  of  God,  in  the  office  of  intercession.  Such  an  inter- 
cession, the  very  pleas  of  which  are  in  his  vicarious  sacrifice  and 
blood,  affirms  the  reality  of  atonement. 

8.  Christ  a  Unique  Saviour. — Christ  is  a  person  in  history;  but 
his  history  is  unique,  and  his  character  and  work  unique  his- 
unique.  Often  designated  the  Son  of  man,  he  yet  ™'^^- 
cannot  be  classed  with  men.  In  the  fashion  of  a  man,  he  is  yet 
above  men.  The  facts  of  his  life  constitute  a  new  history,  distinct 
and  different  from  all  others.  They  reveal  a  personal  conscious- 
ness alone  in  its  kind.  A  manifest  fact  of  this  consciousness  is  the 
profound  sense  of  a  divine  vocation,  original  and  singular  in  the 
moral  history  of  the  world,  and  which  he  only  can  fulfill.  The 
moral  impression  of  his  life  upon  the  souls  of  men  is  peculiar  to 
itself,  and  fitly  responsive  to  the  originality  of  his  own  character 
and  work.  Amid  men  and  angels,  he  stands  apart  in  his  own  per- 
sonality and  mission. 

His  religion  is  unique.  It  is  such  because  he,  as  a  religious 
founder,  is  original  and  singular.  Here,  also,  he  can-  unique  re- 
not  be  classed  with  others  in  any  exact  sense.  Every  l'gion. 
religion  is,  more  or  less,  what  its  founder  is.  His  thoughts  and 
feelings  are  wrought  into  it.  It  takes  its  molding  from  the  cast  of 
his  mind.  Its  aims  and  forces  are  the  outgoing  of  his  own  sub- 
jective life.  Most  eminently  has  Christ  wrought  his  soul  and  life 
into  his  own  religion.  In  the  highest  sense  its  aims  and  forces 
are  the  outgoing  of  his  own  mind :  so  much  so  that  to  come  into 
the  same  mind  with  him  is  the  highest  realization  of  the  Christian 
life.  What  he  is,  his  religion  is.  But  his  distinctive  peculiarity,  as 
the  founder  of  a  religion,  is  not  so  much  in  the  higher  measure  of  his 
life  wrought  into  it  as  in  the  quality  of  that  life.  Hence  his  re- 
ligion differs  so  much  from  all  others,  because  he  differs  so  much 
from  all  other  religious  founders. 

His  religion  is  unique  as  one  of  salvation.     And  it  is  not  only 
the  fact  of  a  salvation,  but  especially  the  distinctive  character  of 


78  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

it,  that  constitutes  the  peculiarity.     It  is  a  salvation  in  forgiveness 
of  sin  and  in  moral   regeneration.      So  it  is  realized 

A  SALVATION.        •  ,  1  •  •  J?  1  A       J     XI    • 

m  the  gracious  experience  oi  many  souls.  And  this 
salvation  comes  not  as  the  fruit  of  culture,  nor  in  reward  of  per- 
sonal merit,  nor  as  the  purchase  of  penance  or  treasure.  A  religion 
grounded  in  such  profound  truths  respecting  God  and  man,  and 
especially  respecting  man's  moral  state  and  spiritual  destiny  and 
needs,  never  could  offer  such  a  salvation  on  such  conditions.  The 
means  have  no  sufficiency  for  the  end.  This  salvation  is  pro- 
vided for  and  possible  only  in  the  grace  and  spiritual  agencies  of  a 
redemptive  economy.  Here  sin  is  taken  away  and  the  soul  renewed. 
There  is  a  new  life  in  Christ.  In  this  life  is  salvation — such  a 
salvation  as  no  other  religion  provides. 

Most  of  all  is  Christ  a  unique  Saviour  in  that  he  saves  us  by 

the  sacrifice  of  himself.     The  salvation  is  not  in  his 

A  SATIOFR.  ,.     .      .,  .          ,    .      ,  .,  •          1    • 

divinity,  nor  m  his  humanity,  nor  m  his  unique  per- 
sonality as  the  God-man,  nor  in  the  lessons  of  religion  which  he 
taught,  nor  in  the  perfect  life  which  he  lived  and  gave  to  the  world 
as  an  example,  nor  in  the  love  wherewith  he  loved  us,  nor  in  all  the 
moral  force  of  life,  and  lesson,  and  love  combined,  but  in  his  cross 
— in  the  blood  of  his  cross  as  an  atonement  for  sin.  The  voice  of 
revelation  is  one  voice,  ever  distinct,  unvarying,  and  emphatic,  in 
the  utterance  of  this  truth.  This  utterance  comes  forth  of  all  the 
facts  and  words  which  reveal  the  distinctively  saving  work  of 
Christ.  They  need  no  citation  here.  A  few  have  already  been 
given.  Others  will  appear  in  their  proper  place.  For  the  present, 
the  position  need  only  be  stated  and  emphasized:  Christ  is  a  Sav- 
iour through  an  atonement  in  his  blood.  He  is  such  a  Saviour 
singularly,  uniquely.  The  fact  is  too  clear  and  certain  for  denial. 
No  one  familiar  with  the  Scriptures,  and  frank  in  his  spiritual 
mood,  can  question  it. 

This  is  a  cardinal  fact,  and  one  not  to  be  overlooked  in  the  in- 
THRouGH  HIS  tcrpretatioii  of  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ.  No 
OWN  BLOOD,  other  has  ever  claimed  to  put  his  own  life  and  blood 
into  the  saving  efficiency  of  his  religion.  No  other  is,  nor  can  be, 
such  a  Saviour  as  Christ.  If  a  Saviour  only  through  a  moral  influ- 
ence, good  men  are  saviours  as  truly  as  he,  and  in  the  same  mode, 
differing  only  in  the  measure  of  their  influence.  Can  such  a  theory 
interpret  the  Scriptures,  or  find  a  response  in  the  highest,  best 
form  of  the  Christian  consciousness?  Who  is  there  in  all  the 
Christian  ages  whom  we  can  regard  as  a  saviour  in  the  same  sense 
as  Christ,  and  differing  only  in  the  measure  of  his  saving  influ- 
ence?   As  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  apprehended  in  the  liv- 


REALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  79 

ing  faith  of  the  Church,  and  realized  in  the  truest  Christian  expe- 
rience, Christ  is  the  only  Saviour.  And  lie  is  a  Saviour  only 
through  an  atonement  in  his  blood.  This  is  his  highest  distinction 
as  a  Saviour,  and  one  that  jihices  him  apart  from  all  others.  Any 
theory  of  Christianity  contrary  to  this  view  is  false  to  the  Script- 
ures, false  to  the  soteriology  of  the  Gospel,  false  to  the  living  re- 
ligious faith  and  consciousness  of  the  Christian  centuries.  And 
unless  we  can  surrender  all  essentially  distinctive  character  in  the 
saving  work  of  Christ,  and  so  do  violence  to  all  decisive  facts  in 
the  case,  we  must  maintain  a  true  atonement  in  his  death  as  the 
only  and  necessary  ground  of  forgiveness  and  salvation. 

II.  Witnessing  Teems. 

Advocates  of  an  objective  atonement  in  Christ,  while  differing  on 
the  doctrine,  are  quite  agreed  on  the  Scripture  proofs  of  the  fact. 
Their  interpretations  are  much  the  same,  except  where  they  go  be- 
yond the  reality- of  an  atonement  and  press  their  respective  doctrinal 
views  into  the  exposition.  It  is  in  the  order  of  a  better  method  to 
keep,  as  far  as  practicable,  to  one  question  at  a  time.  This  we 
shall  endeavor  to  do  in  treating  the  leading  terms  for  the  fact  of 
atonement.  A  full  treatment  of  these  terms  for  the  purpose  in 
hand  would  require  a  volume.  The  discussion  has  often  been  elab- 
orately gone  over,  and  very  conclusively  for  the  fact  of  an  atone- 
ment. There  is,  therefore,  the  less  occasion  to  repeat  it.  Any  one 
interested  in  the  question  will  readily  find  its  full  and  able  treat- 
ment in  the  standard  works  on  systematic  theology,  and  in  treatises 
exclusively  on  the  atonement. 

1.  Atonement. — This  term  is  of  frequent  use  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  occurs  only  once  in  the  New.  The  original,  ")Q3,  signifies 
to  cover  ;  then  to  cover  sin,  to  forgive  sin,  to  discharge  from  pun- 
ishment :  in  its  noun  form,  an  expiation,  a  propitiation,  a  redemp- 
tion. ' 

In  its  primary  meaning  the  term  has  no  proper  sense  of  atone- 
ment." It  acquires  such  a  sense  in  its  use.  Its  meaning,  as  in  the 
case  of  many  other  terms,  is  thus  broadened.  A  rigid  adherence 
in  such  a  case  to  the  primary  sense  is  false  to  the  deeper  ideas  con- 
veyed. Atonement,  as  expressed  by  this  term,  was  often  for  the 
removal  of  ceremonial  impurities,  or  in  order  to  a  proper  qualifi- 
cation for  sacred  services.     It  has  this  sense  in  application  to  both 

'  Geseniua  :  Hebrew  and  English  Leocicon  ;  Magee  :  Atonement  and  Sacrifice, 
dissertation  xxxvi ;  John  Pye  Smith  :  Sacrifice  and  Priesthood,  pp.  136,  301-304 ; 
Cave  :  The  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  pp.  483-486. 

"  Gen.  vi,  14. 


80  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

things  and  persons/     We  have  not  yet,  however,  the  full  sense,  but 
a  foreshadowing  of  its  deeper  meaning. 

In  the  more  strictly  moral  and  legal  relations  of  the  term  we 
may  admit  a  lower  and  a  higher  sense,  and  without  any 

LOWER    SENSE.  •  ,         ^1  i  i.i  J       £    xi  ^ 

concession  to  those  who,  on  the  ground  oi  the  former, 
would  exclude  the  latter.  In  many  instances  atonement  was  made 
for  what  are  designated  as  sins  of  ignorance.'  It  may  not  be  right- 
fully assumed  that  these  sins  were  without  amenability  in  justice 
and  law.  The  contrary  is  apparent.  "  The  ignorance  intended 
cannot  have  been  of  a  nature  absolute  and  invincible,  but  such  as 
the  clear  promulgation  of  their  law,  and  their  strict  obligation  to 
study  it  day  and  night,  rendered  them  accountable  for,  and  which 
was  consequently  in  a  certain  degree  culpable."^  But  were  such 
instances  without  culpability,  and  therefore  without  evidence  of  an 
atonement,  the  fact  could  not  affect  the  instances  of  atonement  for 
sins  of  the  deepest  responsibility.  There  are  such  instances.^  And 
to  put  the  lower  sense  upon  examples  of  the  higher — most  of  all,  to 
deny  the  higher  because  there  is  a  lower — is  without  law  in  Script- 
ure exegesis. 

In  the  higher  moral  and  legal  relations  of  atonement  there  are 
the  facts  of  sin  and  judicial  condemnation.      The  of- 
fender is  answerable  in  penalty.    Then  there  is  a  vicari- 
ous sacrifice,  and  the  forgiveness  of  the  sinner.     There  is  an  atone- 
ment for  sin.     The  fact  is  clear  in  the  Scripture  texts  given  by 
reference.     Others  equally  conclusive  will  be  given  elsewhere. 
There  are  instances  of  atonement  without  any  sacrifice.     Moses 
bv  an  intercessory  prayer  made  an  atonement  for  Israel 

ATONEMENT  '^  J    i.        J  ,.. 

WITHOUT  after  the  sin  of  idolatry  m  worshiping  the  golden  calf. 
SACRIFICE.  Aaron  with  his  censer  atoned  for  the  congregation  after 
the  rebellion  of  Korah.^  Phinehas  by  his  religious  zeal  made  an 
atonement  for  the  people,  and  turned  away  from  them  the  divine 
wrath.'  In  view  of  such  facts  it  is  urged  that  there  is  no  direct  and 
necessary  connection  between  sacrifices  of  atonemejit  and  the  divine 
forgiveness,  and  hence,  that  there  is  no  proof  in  the  sacrificial  system 
of  an  atonement  for  sin  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  This  is  inconse- 
quent. The  sacrifices  of  the  law  were  an  atonement  only  typically, 
not  intrinsically."  While,  therefore,  certain  kinds  might  have 
special  fitness  for  this  service,  yet  mere  typical  fitness  has  nothing 
essential.     Hence  these  sacrifices  of  atonement  might  be  varied  or 

•  Lev.  xvi,  11,  16,  18,  33.  'Lev.  iv,  13-26 ;  v,  17-19  ;  Num.  xv,  24-28. 

^  Magee  :  Atonement  and  Sacrifice,  dissertation  xxxArii. 
"  Lev.  vi,  2-7.  *  Exod.  xxxii,  30-32.  « Num.  xvi,  46-48. 

^Num.  XXV,  11-13.      8Heb.  x,  1-11. 


REALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  81 

even  omitted,  while  the  atonement  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  as 
intrinsically  such,  is  both  real  and  necessary. 

We  get  the  proof  of  an  atonement  in  Christ  not  so  much  from  the 
direct  application  of  the  original  term  to  him  as  from  atonkment  in 
certain  significant  types  fulfilled  in  him,  and  especially  c'irist. 
from  the  application  ct  equivalent  terms  in  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament  to  his  redemptive  mediation.  We  may  give  one  in- 
stance in  which  the  original  term  is  applied  to  the  atoning  sacrifice 
of  Christ.'  The  passage  referred  to  is  clearly  Messianic.  It  deter- 
mines by  historic  connections  the  time  of  Christ's  advent.  Then 
it  gives  certain  ends  to  be  accomplished  :  ''  to  make  an  end  of  sins  " 
— to  terminate  the  typical  sacrifices  of  the  law  by  the  one  sufficient 
sacrifice  of  himself ;  '*  and  to  make  reconciliation — ^^S3^i — for  in- 
iquity." The  passage  clearly  shows  that  Christ  makes  an  atone- 
ment for  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.  And  this  sense  is  empha- 
sized in  the  further  fact  that  "  Messiah  shall  be  cut  off,  but  not 
for  himself,"  especially  as  viewed  in  the  light  of  intimately  related 
facts  and  utterances  of  the  Gospel. 

2.  ReconciUation. — Reconciliation,  and  to  reconcile — KaraXXayri, 
KaraXXdaoetv — are  terms  frequently  applied  to  the  redemptive  work 
of  Christ,  and  with  the  clear  sense  of  a  real  atonement. 

'*  For  if,  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the 
death  of  his  Son;  much  mor:,  being  reconciled,  we  shall 
be  saved  by  his  lifo."'  This  is  the  reconciliation  of 
enemies,  and,  therefore,  of  persons  under  God's  displeasure  and  ju- 
dicial condemnation.  The  reconciliation  is  by  the  death  of  his  Son. 
The  assurance  of  salvation  lies  in  the  fact  of  such  a  reconciliation 
of  enemies.  Acceptance  in  the  divine  favor  comes  after  this  recon- 
ciliation as  its  provisional  ground.  The  death  of  Christ  renders 
forgiveness  consistent  with  the  requirements  of  justice  in  moral 
administration.  Si:ch  a  reconciliation  is  the  reality  of  atonement. 
With  such  a  fact,  St.  Paul  might  well  add  i  "And  not  only  so, 
but  we  also  joy  in  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
we  have  now  received — r^v  KaraXXayriv — the  reconciliation."  * 
Here  is  the  joy  of  an  actual  reconciliation  through  the  death  of 
Christ. 

"And  all  things  are  of  God,  who  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  by  jesus 

reconciliation,"  etc.*     The  facts  of  this  text  give  the  christ. 

sense  of  a  real  atonement.  The  reconciliation  is  in  Christ.  It 
includes  a  non-imputation  of  sin  ;  that  is,  we  are  no  longer  held  in 
absolute  condemnation,  but  have  the  gracious  privilege  of  the  divine 

'  Dan.  ix,  24-26.  '■<  Eom.  v,  10.  ^Rom.  v,  11,  *2  Cor.  v,  18-21. 


82  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

forgiveness  and  friendship.  Hence  there  is  committed  to  us  the 
ministry  of  reconciliation,  with  its  gracious  overtures  and  entreat- 
ies. And  the  manner  in  which  God  reconciles  us  to  himself  in 
Christ  is  deeply  emphasized:  "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for 
us,  who  knew  no  sin ;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him."  Any  fair  exposition  of  this  text  must  find  in  it  the 
fact  of  an  atonement.' 

It  is  urged  in  objection,  that  in  these  texts  we  are  said  to  be  rec- 
REcoNciLEDTo  oucilcd  to  God,  not  God  to  us.  The  fact  is  admitted, 
GOD.  while  the  validity  of  the  objection  is  denied.     It  falsely 

assumes  that  the  only  bar  to  God's  friendship  with  his  rebellious 
subjects  is  in  their  hostility  to  him;  and  hence  illogically  concludes 
that  the  reconciliation  in  Christ  is  an  atonement,  not  as  a  rectoral 
ground  of  the  divine  forgiveness,  but  simply  as  a  moral  influence 
leading  them  to  repentance  and  loyalty.  This  is  contradicted  by 
many  principles  and  facts  previously  discussed.  It  is  contrary  to 
those  texts  according  to  which  God,  by  the  reconciliation  in  Christ, 
puts  himself  into  a  relation  of  mercy  toward  us,  and  then,  on  the 
ground  of  this  reconciliation,  urges  and  entreats  us  in  penitence 
and  faith  to  accept  his  offered  forgiveness  and  love.  Thus  upon 
the  ground  of  a  provisory  divine  reconciliation  there  will  follow  an 
actual  reconciliation  and  a  mutual  friendship. 

Further,  this  objection  falsely  assumes  that  reconciliation  is  sim- 
ply the  cessation  of  hostility  in  the  party  said  to  be  recon- 

SENSE  OF  THE       ^.  *'  J  1  J 

REcoNciLiA-  ciled.  It  properly  means,  and  often  can  mean  only, 
^^*'"*'  that  he  is  reconciled  in  the  sense  of  gaining  the  forgive- 

ness and  friendship  of  the  party  to  whom  he  is  reconciled.  Of  this 
there  are  familiar  instances  in  Scripture.*  As  applied  to  rebellious 
subjects  the  term  has  its  first  relation  to  the  ruler.  *'  To  be  7'econ- 
ciled,  when  spoken  of  subjects  who  have  been  in  rebellion  against 
their  sovereign,  is  to  be  brought  into  a  state  in  which  pardon  is  of- 
fered to  them,  and  they  have  it  in  their  power  to  render  themselves 
capable  of  that  pardon,  namely,  of  laying  down  their  enmity.  .  .  . 
Wherefore,  the  reconciliation  received  through  Christ  is  God's 
placing  all  mankind,  ever  since  the  fall,  under  the  gracious  new 
covenant,  procured  for  them  through  the  obedience  of  Christ ;  in 
which  the  pardon  of  sin  is  offered  to  them,  together  with  eternal 
life,  on  their  fulfilling  its  gracious  requisitions."^  This  is  an  accu- 
rate statement  of  the  reconciliation  in  Christ,  and  gives  us  the  fact 
of  an  atonement  therein. 

'  See  also  Eph.  ii,  16  ;  Col.  i,  20-22 ;  Heb.  ii,  17. 

2  1  Sam,  xxix,  4  ;  Matt,  v,  23,  24. 

'  Maeknight :   On  the  Epistles,  Rom.  v,  10. 


REALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  83 

3.  Propitiation. — To  be  propitious  is  to  be  disposed  to  forgive- 
ness and  favor.  To  propitiate  is  to  render  an  aggrieved  or  offended 
party  clement  and  forgiving.  A  propitiation  is  that  whereby  tho 
favorable  change  is  wrought.  There  are  two  points  to  be  specially 
noticed:  the  nature  of  the  divine  propitiousness  toward  sinners; 
and  the  relation  of  the  redemptive  mediation  of  Christ  to  that 
propitiousness. 

God  is  propitious  to  sinners  in  a  disposition  toward  forgiveness. 
This  is  in  the  definition  of  the  term.  The  same  sense  divine  propi- 
is  given  in  Scripture,  without  any  direct  reference  to  a  tiousxess. 
propitiatory  sacrifice.  The  fact  will  render  the  clearer  the  propi- 
tiatory ofl&ce  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  We  will  cite  a  few  texts  in 
illustration;  but  for  a  clearer  view  of  the  sense  stated,  the  original 
terms — appropriate  forms  of  123)  n^D,  IXdaiiofiai — should  be  con- 
sulted, as  the  term  propitious,  or  to  be  propitious,  is  not  given  in 
our  translation.  "  For  thy  name's  sake,  0  Lord,  imrdon  mine  in- 
iquity; for  it  is  great."'  "  But  he,  being  full  of  compassion,  for- 
gave their  iniquity,  and  destroyed  them  not :  yea,  many  a  time 
turned  he  his  anger  away,  and  did  not  stir  up  all  his  wrath."'' 
"  0  Lord,  hear;  0  Lord,  forgive."^  "God  he  merciful  to  me  a 
sinner."*  "For  I  will  5e  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and 
their  sins  and  their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more. "  *  These 
texts,  selected  from  many  similar  ones,  suffice  for  the  position 
that  God  is  propitious  in  a  disposition  toward  forgiveness,  and  in 
the  fact  of  forgiveness  as  the  exercise  of  such  clemency.  Here  are 
sins,  and  the  divine  displeasure  against  them.  Here  are  sinners 
with  a  deep  sense  of  sin  and  of  the  divine  condemnation.  Here 
are  their  earnest  prayers  to  God,  that  he  would  be  propitious  and 
forgive.  And  he  forgives  them,  turns  away  his  wrath  and  accepts 
them  in  favor,  as  he  is  propitious  to  them. 

These  facts  determine  the  meaning  of  a  propitiation.  It  is  that 
which  renders  an  aggrieved  or  offended  party  clement  and  forgiv- 
ing; that  which  is  the  reason  or  ground  of  forgiveness.  Such  a 
propitiation  is  an  atonement. 

Christ  is  a  propitiation  for  sin.  He  is  such  in  his  sacrificial 
death,  and  in  relation  to  the  divine  clemency  and  for-  christ  a  pro- 
giveness.  "  "Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitia-  pitiatiox. 
tion  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the 
remission  of  sins  that  are  past."'  Here  are  all  the  facts  of  a  true 
propitiation:  the  presupposed  sins  as  an  offense  against  God,  and 
his  displeasure  against  them ;  the  blood  of  Christ  as  a  propitiation 

'  Psa.  XXV,  11.  "  Psa.  Ixxviii,  38.  '  Dan.  ix,  19. 

*  Luke  xviii,  13.  '  Heb.  viii,  13.  *  Rom.  iii,  35. 


84  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

for  sins ;  the  divine  clemency  and  forgiveness  through  this  propi- 
tiation. The  blood  of  Christ  fulfills  its  propitiatory  office  with 
God.  There  is,  therefore,  an  atonement  in  his  blood.  Other 
Scripture  texts  give  the  same  truth.  "  And  he  is  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins:  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world."  "Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that 
he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins. " ' 
Such  a  propitiation  for  sin  is  the  reality  of  an  atonement  in  Christ. 

4.  Redemption. — Under  this  term  might  be  classed  many  texts 
which,  with  the  utmost  certainty,  give  us  the  fact  of  an  atonement. 

Eedemption  has  a  clear  and  well-defined  sense.  To  redeem  is  to 
purchase  back,  to  ransom,  to  liberate  from  slavery,  cap- 
tivity, or  death,  by  the  payment  of  a  price.  This  gives 
the  sense  of  redemption  or  to  redeem — Xvrgoui — in  both  its  classic 
and  Scripture  use.^ 

Under  the  Mosaic  law  alienated  lands  might  be  recovered  by  the 
payment  of  a  ransom  or  price.     This  would  be  a  re- 

INSTANCES.  -I-      »^  J- 

demption.  Such  alienated  property,  if  not  previously 
ransomed,  reverted  without  price  at  the  Jubilee;  but  this  rever- 
sion was  not  a  redemption,  because  without  any  ransom.^  A  poor 
Israelite  might  redeem  himself  from  slavery  by  the  payment  of  a 
sum  reckoned  according  to  the  time  remaining  for  which  he  had 
sold  himself.  This  would  be  his  redemption.  But  the  freedom 
which  came  with  the  jubilee  was  not  a  redemption,  because  it  came 
without  any  price.*  These  facts  confirm  the  sense  of  redemption 
as  previously  given.  Further,  in  the  case  of  one  who  has  forfeited 
his  life:  "If  there  be  laid  on  him  a  sum  of  money,  then  he  shall 
give  for  the  ransom  of  his  life  whatsoever  is  laid,  upon  him.""  *  This 
is  an  instance  of  redemption.  The  same  meaning  lies  in  the  fact 
that  for  the  life  of  a  murderer  no  ransom  was  permitted." 

Occasional  uses  of  the  term  simply  in  the  sense  of  a  deliverance 
are  not  contrary  to  the  truer  and  deeper  meaning.  There  is  a  de- 
liverance as  the  result  of  a  redemption.  The  ransom  is  paid  in 
order  to  the  deliverance.  And  it  is  a  proper  usage  to  apply  the 
name  of  a  thing  to  its  effect,  or  to  what  constitutes  only  a  part  of 
its  meaning.  This  use  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  deeper  sense 
of  redemption,  while  the  deeper  sense  cannot  be  reduced  to  that  of 
a  mere  deliverance.  This  is  true  of  the  instances  previously  given, 
and  will  be  found  true  of  the  redemption  in  Christ. 

'  1  John  ii,  2 ;  iv,  10. 

'  John  Pye  Smith  :  Sacrifice  and  Priesthood,  pp.  204-207  ;  Hill  :  Lectures  in 
Divinity,  pp.  474,  475.  ^  Lev.  xxv,  23-28.  •*  Lev.  xxv,  47-54. 

'  Exod.  xxi,  30.  «  Num.  xxxv,  31. 


IIEALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  85 

We  shall  here  select  but  a  few  of  the  many  texts  which  apply  the 
terms  of  redemption  to  the  saving  work  of  Christ.  rkdemption 
"The  Son  of  man  came  ...  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  bychrist. 
for  many."  "  Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all."  '  The  original 
terms — Xvtqov,  dvriXvTgov — are  the  very  terms  which  signify  tlie 
ransom  or  price  given  for  the  liberation  of  a  captive,  the  recovery  of 
anything  forfeited,  or  the  satisfaction  of  penal  obligation.  So,  for 
our  deliverance  from  sin  and  death,  and  for  the  recovery  of  our 
forfeited  spiritual  life,  Christ  gives  his  life — himself — as  the  ransom. 
Kedemption  in  its  deeper  sense  could  not  have  a  clearer  expression. 
Truly  are  we  ''bought  with  a  price;"  ''not  redeemed  with  cor- 
ruptible things,  as  silver  and  gold,  .  .  .  but  with  the  precious  blood 
of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot."^  As  in 
other  cases  silver  and  gold  constitute  the  ransom,  so  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  the  price  of  our  redemption  from  sin. 

"  Who  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all 
iniquity." — "  And  for  this  cause  he  is  the  mediator  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, that  by  means  of  death,  for  the  redemption  of  the  trans- 
gressions that  were  under  the  first  testament,  they  which  are  called 
might  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheritance."^  Here  are  facts 
of  redemption  which  give  us  a  real  atonement.  We  are  sinners, 
with  the  penal  liabilities  of  sin;  and  Christ  gives  his  own  life  as  the 
price  of  our  ransom. 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made 
a  curse  for  us:  for  it  is  written.  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth 
on  a  tree."  "But  when  the  fullness  of  the  time  was  come,  God 
sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  re- 
deem them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the 
adoption  of  sons."  *  In  the  second  text  we  have  a  different  original 
word — e^ayopdi^cj — but  of  like  meaning.  The  subjects  of  the  re- 
demption are  under  the  law,  and  under  the  curse  of  the  law — the 
former  state  implying  all  that  the  latter  expresses.  Whether  "  the 
law  "  be  the  law  of  nature  or  the  Mosaic,  the  facts  of  redemption 
are  the  same.  Under  both  men  are  sinners,  and  by  neither  is 
there  salvation.  The  redemption  is  from  the  penalty  of  sin — 
from  the  curse  of  the  law.  The  same  sense  is  determined  by  tlie 
fact  that  the  redemption  is  to  the  end  "that  we  might  receive 
the  adoption  of  sons."  The  death  of  Christ  upon  the  cross  is  the 
redemption. 

"  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  redemption  that 
is  in  Christ  Jesus."     "In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his 

'  Matt.  XX,  28 ;  1  Tim.  ii,  6.  »  1  Cor.  vi,  20 ;  1  Pet.  i,  18,  19. 

3  Titus  ii,  14 ;  Heb.  ix,  15.  ••  Gal.  iii,  13  ;  iv,  4,  5. 

8 


8G  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace." ' 
Here  we  have  the  same  facts  of  redemption.  We  are  sinners  and 
under  divine  condemnation.  The  redemption  through  Christ,  and 
in  his  blood,  is  in  order  to  our  justification,  or  the  forgiveness  of 
our  sins. 

Such  are  the  facts  of  redemption  by  Jesus  Christ.  And  with  the 
A  REAL  ATONE-  ^lu  aud  condcmnation  of  men  as  its  subjects,  with  the 
MENT.  forgiveness  and  salvation  which  it  provides,  with  the 

blood  of  Christ  as  the  ransom  whereby  the  gracious  change  is 
wrought,  it  is  unreasonable  to  deny  the  fact  of  an  atonement  in  his 
redeeming  death.  "Every  one  feels  the  effect  of  introducing  the 
nouns  XvTQov  or  dvriX.vTpov,  in  connection  with  the  verb  Xvo),  when 
applied  to  the  case  of  a  discharged  debtor  or  released  captive,  as 
making  it  perfectly  clear  that  his  redemption  is  not  gratuitous,  but 
that  some  consideration  is  given  for  the  securing  it.  Nor  is  the 
significancy  of  these  nouns  in  the  least  diminished  when  it  is  from 
penal  consequences  of  a  judicial  nature  that  a  person  is  released. 
The  Xvrgov^  indeed,  in  that  case,  is  not  a  price  from  which  the  law- 
giver is  to  receive  any  personal  advantage.  It  is  the  satisfaction  to 
public  law  and  justice  upon  which  he  consents  to  remit  the  sen- 
tence. But  still,  the  mention  of  it,  in  this  case  as  well  as  in  others, 
is  absolutely  inconsistent  with  a  gratuitous  remission."^  This 
statement  holds  true,  with  all  the  force  of  its  facts,  in  application, 
as  intended,  to  the  redemption  in  Christ.  The  deeper  ideas  of 
redemption  were  wrought  into  the  minds  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  by  both  their  Hebraic  and  Hellenic  education.  Nor 
may  we  think  that  they  used  its  terms  out  of  their  proper  meaning 
in  applying  them  to  the  saving  work  of  Christ.  Such  a  redemption 
is  the  reality  of  atonement. 

Kedemption  holds  a  prominent  place  in  the  nomenclature  of 
atonement ;  indeed,  is  often  used  for  the  designative 

NOT     IN     A  .  1  «  •  ij?  T  1 

COMMERCIAL  tcrm  lustcad  of  atonement  itself.  It  may  be  pressed 
SENSE.  -j^^^  ^i^g  service  of  an  erroneous  doctrine.     The  result 

is  a  commercial  atonement.  But  this  is  carrying  the  analogy  in  the 
case  to  an  unwarranted  extreme.  Eedemption  is  modified  by  the 
sphere  in  which  it  is  made.  The  ransom-price  of  a  captive  or  slave 
goes  to  the  personal  benefit  of  the  party  making  the  surrender;  it 
is  his  compensation.  The  transaction  is  one  of  barter.  When  a 
penalty  of  death  was  commuted  for  a  sum  of  money  the  ransom 

'  Rom.  iii,  24 ;  Eph.  i,  7. 

'^  Hill  :  Lectures  in  Divinity,  vol.  ii,  p.  483.  The  passage  varies  from  the 
same  one  in  the  American  edition,  and  is  given  as  quoted  by  Professor 
Crawford. 


REALITY  OF  ATONEMENT.  ST 

was  penal  and  of  rectoral  service,  but  also  of  pecuniary  value  with 
the  government.  In  the  divine  government  there  can  be  no  such 
element  of  redemption.  The  redemption  does  not  thereby  lose  the 
sense  of  an  atonement,  but  should,  therefore,  be  guarded  against 
an  erroneous  doctrine.  The  gist  of  the  analogy  is  in  the  fact  of  a 
compensatory  ransom.  This  is  consistent  with  a  wide  distinction 
in  the  nature  of  the  compensation.  There  is  a  wide  distinction  in 
fact:  in  the  one  case  a  personal,  pecuniary  compensation;  in  the 
other,  a  compensation  in  rectoral  value.  In  the  one  case  money 
redeems  a  captive  or  slave  as  a  commercial  equivalent;  in  the  other, 
the  blood  of  Christ  redeems  a  soul  as  the  rectoral  equivalent  of 
penalty.  The  ransom  is  as  vitally  related  to  the  result  in  the  latter 
case  as  in  the  former.  This  gives  us  the  reality  of  an  atonement 
in  the  redemption  of  Christ,  and  will  give  us  a  doctrine  without 
any  commercial  element. 

5.  Substitution. — Substitution  is  not  formally  a  Scripture  term, 
but  well  expresses  the  sense  of  numerous  texts  in  their  application 
to  the  saving  work  of  Christ.  Like  the  term  "  redemption,"  it 
may  be  pressed  into  the  service  of  an  erroneous  doctrine.  This, 
however,  can  be  done  only  by  a  wrong  interpretation  of  the  substi- 
tution. But  we  are  still  only  on  the  fact  of  an  atonement,  and,  for 
the  proof  of  this,  here  require  nothing  more  than  the  substitution 
of  Christ  in  suffering  as  the  ground  of  forgiveness. 

The  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  is  clearly  Messianic,  and  clearly 
gives  us  the  fact  of  substitutional  atonement.  We  words  of 
shall  attempt  no  elaborate  or  critical  exposition.  This  isaiah. 
has  often  been  done,  and  successfully  for  the  sense  of  a  real  atone- 
ment.' We  cite  the  leading  utterances:  "  But  he  was  wounded  for 
our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities:  the  chastise- 
ment of  our  peace  was  upon  him ;  and  with  his  stripes  we  are 
healed.  .  .  .  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  .  .  . 
He  is  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter.  .  .  .  For  the  transgres- 
sion of  my  people  was  he  stricken.  .  .  .  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to 
bruise  him;  he  hath  put  him  to  grief:  when  thou  shalt  make  his 
soul  an  offering  for  sin.  .  .  .  And  he  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and 
made  intercession  for  the  transgressors."^  These  words  are  deci- 
sive of  a  substitutional  atonement  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 

"  For  when  we  were  yet  without  strength,  in  due  time   Christ 
died  for  the  ungodly.     For  scarcely  for  a  righteous  man    other  proof 
Avill  one  die:  yet  perad venture  for  a  good  man  some    '"^^ts. 
would  even  dare  to  die.     But  God  commendeth  his  love  toward 

'  Alexander,  Lowth,  Delitzscb,  severally  on  Isaiah  ;  Terry  :  Methodist  Quar- 
terly Review,  January,  1880.  "  laa.  liii,  5-12. 


88  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us."' 
Surely  here  is  atonement  in  substitution.  Those  for  whom  Christ 
died  are  noted  as  ungodly,  sinners,  enemies.  Hence  they  are  in  a 
state  of  condemnation.  In  the  death  of  Christ  for  them  is  the 
ground  of  their  Justification,  which  is  impossible  by  the  deeds  of 
the  law.  These  facts  give  us  atonement  by  substitution.  This  sense 
is  confirmed  by  the  supposed  case  of  one  dying  for  another.  It  is 
the  supposition  of  a  substitution  of  one  life  for  another,  the  rescue 
of  one  by  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  another.  So  Christ  died  for  us 
as  sinners,  and  in  order  to  our  forgiveness  and  salvation.  It  is  a 
substitution  in  law  ;  not  penal,  but  rectoral,  so  that  law  might  still 
fulfill  its  office  in  the  interest  of  moral  government.  This  is  vica- 
rious atonement. 

"  Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree, 
that  we,  being  dead  to  sins,  should  live  unto  righteousness :  by 
whose  stripes  ye  were  healed."^  Here  is  a  clear  reference  to  the 
fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  also  the  same  sense  of  atonement 
by  substitution. 

"  For  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the 
unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God."^  Our  sins  separate  us 
from  God,  and  bring  us  under  his  condemnation.  There  can  be 
reconciliation  and  fellowship  only  through  forgiveness.  Christ 
provides  for  this  by  suffering  for  our  sins  in  our  stead — the  just 
for  the  unjust.  This  is  the  reality  of  atonement  by  substitution 
in  suffering. 

»  Rom.  V,  6-8.  "1  Pet.  ii,  24.  » 1  Pet.  iii,  18. 


NECESSITY  FOR  ATONEMENT.  89 


CHAPTER  IT. 

NECESSITY  FOR  ATONEMENT. 

The  necessity  for  an  atonement  is  so  closely  related  to  the  ques- 
tion of  its  nature  that  the  former  might  be  fully  discussed  in  con- 
nection with  the  latter.  Yet  its  separate  treatment,  at  least  so  far 
as  our  own  doctrine  is  concerned,  is  in  the  order  of  the  better 
method. 

In  our  witnessing  facts  for  the  reality  of  an  atonement  we  gave 
Scripture  proofs  of  its  necessity.  This  necessity,  as  proofs  of  xe- 
divinely  revealed,  is  asserted  in  the  most  explicit  and  ^-kssity. 
emphatic  terms.  It  is  given  with  all  the  force  of  a  logical  implica- 
tion in  the  requirement  of  faith  in  the  redeeming  Christ  as  the 
necessary  condition  of  forgiveness  and  salvation.  It  is  further 
verified  as  the  only  explanation  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ.  The  facts  of  his  redemptive  mediation  are  of  no  ordinary 
character.  Indeed,  they  are  so  extraordinary  as  to  require  the 
profoundest  necessity  for  their  vindication  under  a  specially  prov- 
idential economy.  The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  is  a  mar- 
velous event.  Its  deeper  meaning  we  read  only  in  the  light 
of  his  own  character  and  rank.  In  the  form  of  God,  he  has  a 
rightful  glory  in  equality  with  him.  This  he  surrenders,  and 
takes,  instead,  the  form  of  a  servant,  in  the  likeness  of  men. 
His  estate  is  in  the  deepest  abasement.  He  is  a  man  of  sorrows 
and  acquainted  with  grief.  He  bears  the  reproaches  and  hatreds 
of  men.  His  sufferings  have  unfathomed  depths.  After  the 
profound  self-humiliation  in  the  incarnation  he  yet  further  hum- 
bles himself  and  becomes  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of 
the  cross.' 

The  will  of  the  Father  is  concurrent  with  the  will  of  the  Son  in 
this  whole  transaction.  While  the  Son  comes  in  the  gladness  of 
filial  obedience  and  the  compassion  of  redeeming  love,  the  Father 
sends  him  forth  and  prepares  for  him  a  body  for  liis  priestly  sacri- 
fice.' The  infinite  sacrifice  of  this  concurring  love  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son  affirms  the  deepest  necessity  for  an  atonement  as  the 
ground  of  forgiveness. 

'  Psa.  Ixix,  9  ;  Rom.  xv,  3  ;  Phil,  ii,  6-8  ;  1  Tim.  iii,  18. 
2  Psa.  xl,  6-8  ;  Heb.  x.  5-9. 


«J0  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

I.  Ground  of  Necessity  iif  Moral  Governmekt. 

Only  with  the  fact  of  a  divine  moral  government  can  there  be  the 
occasion  of  any  question  respecting  the  necessity  for  an  atonement. 
If  we  are  not  under  law  to  God  we  are  without  sin.  If  without  sin, 
we  have  nothing  to  be  forgiven.  Hence  there  could  be  for  us  no 
necessary  ground  of  forgiveness. 

1.  Fact  of  a  Moral  Government. — God  being  God,  and  the  Crea- 
tor of  men,  and  men  being  what  they  are,  a  moral  government  is 
the  profoundest  moral  necessity.  We  have  a  moral  nature,  with 
the  powers  of  an  ethical  life.  Our  character  is  determined  according 
to  the  use  of  these  powers.  Herein  is  involved  our  profoundest  per- 
sonal interest.  We  also  deeply  affect  each  other,  and  after  the 
manner  of  our  own  life.  Here  is  a  law  of  great  evil.  Nor  would 
the  fact  be  other,  except  infinitely  worse,  were  we  wholly  without 
law  from  heaven.  The  less  men  know  of  a  divine  law,  with  its 
weightier  obligations  and  sanctions,  the  lower  they  sink  into  moral 
corruption  and  ruin.  The  moral  powers  and  the  forces  of  evil  are 
full  of  spontaneous  impulse.  Nor  do  they  await  the  occasion  of  a 
revealed  law  for  their  corrupting  and  ruinous  activity.  And  however 
the  absence  of  all  divine  law  might  change  our  relation  to  judicial 
penalty,  our  moral  ruin  would  be,  nevertheless,  inevitable  and 
utter.  Now,  should  we  even  concede  God's  indifference  to  his  own 
claims  upon  our  obedience  and  love,  it  would  be  irrational,  and 
blasphemous  even,  to  assume  his  indifference  to  all  the  interests  of 
virtue  and  well-being  in  us.  He  cannot  overlook  us.  His  own 
perfections  constrain  his  infinite  regard  for  our  welfare.  Under 
the  condition  of  such  facts  there  is,  and  there  must  be,  a  divine 
moral  government  over  us.  The  moral  consciousness  of  humanity 
affirms  the  fact  of  such  a  government.' 

2.  Requisites  of  a  Moral  Government. — Within  the  moral  realm 
subjects  may  differ  :  possibly,  in  some  facts  of  their  personal  con- 
stitution ;  certainly,  in  their  moral  state  and  tendencies.  A  wise 
government  must  vary  its  provisions  in  adjustment  to  the  require- 
ment of  such  differences.  In  some  facts  the  divine  law  must  be 
the  same  for  all.  It  must  require  the  obedience  of  all ;  for  such  is 
the  right  of  the  divine  Ruler  and  the  common  obligation  of  his 
subjects.  It  must  guard  the  rights  and  interests  of  all.  Beyond 
such  facts,  yet  for  the  reason  of  them,  the  provisions  of  law,  as 
means  to  the  great  ends  of  moral  government,  should  vary  as  subjects 
differ.     The  same  principles  which  imperatively  require  a  moral 

'  Bishop  Butler :  Analogy  of  Beltgion,  part  i,  chaps,  ii,  iii ;  Gillett :  Tfie 
Moral  System. 


NECESSITY  F()I{  ATONEMENT.  91 

govenimeiit  for  moral  beings  also  require  its  economy  in  adjustment 
to  any  considerable  peculiarities  of  moral  condition  and  tendency. 

This  law  has  special  significance,  and  should  not  be  overlooked  in 
the  present  inquiry.  We  are  seeking  for  the  necessity  specially  >or 
of  an  atonement  in  tlie  requirements  of  moral  govern-  *'-^^'- 
ment  ;  and  we  shall  more  readily  find  it  in  view  of  our  own  moral 
tendencies  and  needs.  The  atonement,  while  directly  for  man, 
has  infinitely  wider  relations  than  the  present  sphere  of  humanity. 
Indirectly  it  concerns  all  intelligences,  and  is,  no  doubt,  in  adjust- 
ment to  all  moral  interests.  Still,  in  its  immediate  purpose  it  is  a 
provision  for  the  forgiveness  and  salvation  of  men.  The  atonement 
is,  therefore,  a  measure  introduced  into  the  divine  government  as 
immediately  over  us,  and  its  special  necessity  must  arise  from  the 
interests  so  directly  concerned. 

Subjects  should  know  the  will  of  the  Sovereign.      There   are 
things  to  be  done,  and  things  not  to  be  done.    Nor  can  a  law  of 

such  things  always  be  known  either  by  reason  or  expe-  "^"''^• 
rience.  This  may  be  true  even  with  the  highest  in  perfection,  and 
with  every  thought  and  feeling  responsive  to  duty.  Most  certainly 
is  it  true  of  us.  The  mode  in  which  the  law  of  duty  shall  be  given 
is  not  first  in  importance.  It  is  the  law  itself  that  is  so  essential. 
How  God  may  reveal  his  will  to  angels  we  know  not,  because  wo 
know  neither  his  modes  of  expression  nor  their  powers  of  appre- 
hension. In  some  mode  it  is  made  known,  and  so  becomes  the  law  of 
their  duty.  And  God  has  made  known  his  will  to  us.  This  is  chiefly 
done  through  revelation,  though  we  have  some  light  through  the 
moral  reason  and  the  direct  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  God  gave  a 
law  to  Adam,  communicated  his  will  to  the  patriarchs,  wrote  the  dec- 
alogue on  tables  of  stone  for  Israel  and  for  man,  spake  often  to  the 
people  by  the  prophets.  And  Christ  summed  up  the  law  of  Christian 
duty  in  the  two  great  commandments.  It  is  not  requisite  that  every 
particular  duty  should  lie  given  in  a  special  statute.  This  would  be 
for  us  an  impracticable  code.  We  have  the  law  of  duty,  in  a  far  bet- 
ter form,  in  the  great  moral  principles  given  in  the  gospels.  And 
thus  we  have  the  divine  will  revealed  to  us  as  the  law  of  our  duty. 

In  the  highest  conceivable  perfection,  with  the  clearest  appre- 
hension of  duty,  with  every  sentiment  responsive  to  its  sanction  of 
behests,  and  with  no  tendency  nor  temptation  to  the  rewards. 
contrary,  obedience  would  be  assured  without  the  sanction  of  re- 
wards. In  such  a  state,  however  munificent  the  divine  favors  might 
be  to  such  obedience,  penalty  could  have  no  necessary  govern- 
mental function.  But  when  obedience  is  difficult  and  its  failure  a 
special  liability,  duty  must  have  the  sanction  of  rewards.     They 


92  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

must  form  a  part  of  the  law  and  have  as  distinct  an  announcement 
as  its  precepts.  Otherwise,  government  is  void  of  a  necessary  ad- 
justment to  the  moral  state  of  its  subjects. 

Such  is  the  requirement  of  our  moral  condition.  With  us  there 
NECESSARY  ^rc  mauj  hinderances  to  duty,  and  the  liability  to  sin 
FOR  MAN.  jg  great.     There  is  moral  darkness,  spiritual  apathy,  a 

strong  tendency  to  evil,  and  the  incoming  of  much  temptation. 
We  deeply  need  the  moral  sanctions  of  law  in  the  promise  of  good 
and  the  imminence  of  penalty.  And  however  defective  the  virtue 
Avrought  merely  under  the  influence  of  such  motives,  they  are 
clearly  necessary  to  the  ordinary  morality  of  life.  Whether  in  view 
of  human  or  divine  law,  or  of  the  history  of  the  race,  every  candid 
man  must  confess  the  necessity  of  such  support  to  the  social  and 
public  morality,  and  that  without  it  there  could  be  no  true  civil 
life.  It  was  in  the  conviction  of  such  a  truth  that  the  ancient 
sages  asserted  the  necessity  of  religion  to  the  life  of  the  State  and 
the  well-being  of  society,  and  that  the  ancient  lawgivers  and  rulers 
maintained  religious  institutions  and  services  for  the  sake  of  the 
support  which  the  expectation  of  rewards  in  a  future  state  gave  to 
law  and  duty  in  the  present  life.'  And  for  us  as  a  race  there  is  the 
profoundest  need  of  penalty  as  a  fact  of  law.  With  the  vicious,  as 
the  many  would  be  without  the  law,  the  imminence  of  penalty  is  a 
far  weightier  sanction  of  law  than  the  promise  of  reward. 

3.  Divine  Determination  of  Reivards. — It  is  the  prerogative  of 
the  divine  Euler  to  determine  the  rewards  of  human  conduct.  No 
other  can  determine  them  either  rightfully  or  wisely.  Specially  are 
we  void  of  both  the  prerogative  and  the  capacity  for  their  proper 
apportionment.  Even  in  the  plane  of  secular  duties  and  interests, 
and  with  the  gathered  experience  of  ages,  questions  of  penalty  are 
still  the  perplexing  problems  of  the  most  highly  civilized  States; 
and  surely  we  should  not  assume  a  capacity  for  the  adjustment  of 
law  and  its  rewards  to  the  requirements  of  the  divine  government. 
But  God  comprehends  the  whole  question,  and  has  full  prerogative 
in  its  decisions.  He  knows  what  measure  of  rewards  is  befitting 
his  justice  and  goodness  and  required  by  the  interests  of  his  moral 
government.  And,  accordingly,  he  has  given  us  the  law  of  our 
duty^  with  its  announced  rewards  of  obedience  and  sin. 

4.  Measure  of  Penalty. — God  determines  the  measure  of  penalty, 
DETERMINING  l^^t  uot  arbitrarily.  His  infinite  sovereignty  asserts  no 
LAWS.  disregard  of  the  principles  of  justice  nor  of  the  rights 
and  interests  of  his  subjects.  He  is  a  wise  and  good  Sovereign,  as 
he  is  a  just  and  holy  one. 

'  Warburton:  The  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  books  ii,  iii. 


NECESSITY  FOR  ATONEMENT.  93 

Siu  has  intrinsic  demerit.  It  deserves  to  be  punished;  and  God 
has  the  exact  measure  of  its  desert.  So  far  penalty  thk  demerit 
may  be  carried.  Divine  justice,  in  its  distinctive  retrib-  of  sin. 
utive  function,  has  no  reason  for  pause  short  of  this.  In  its  own 
free  course  it  would  so  ininish  all  sin.  But  justice  cannot  carry  its 
penalties  beyond  the  demerit  of  sin.  Nor  can  it  suffer  any  inter- 
ests of  moral  government  to  carry  them  beyond  this  .limit.  Nay, 
punishment  cannot  go  beyond.  Whatever  transcends  the  intrinsic 
demerit  of  sin  ceases  in  all  that  transcendence  to  be  punishment. 
Hence,  while  the  inherent  turpitude  of  sin  is  the  real  and  only 
ground  of  punishment,  its  own  measure  is  a  limitation  of  penalty. 

It  is  an  important  office  of  penalty  to  conserve  the  interests  of 
the  government.  We  here  use  the  term  government  the  office  of 
not  in  any  ideal  or  abstract  sense,  but  as  including  the  p'^'"''^'''^^- 
divine  Sovereign  ruling  in  its  administration,  and  the  moral  beings 
over  whom  he  rules.  The  rights  and  glory  of  God  are  concerned; 
the  profoundest  interests  of  men  are  concerned.  So  far  we  may 
speak  with  certainty,  however  it  may  be  with  other  orders  of  moral 
beings.  Hence  the  rectoral  function  of  penalty  is  a  most  important 
one.  Its  importance  rises  in  the  measure  of  the  interests  which  it 
must  conserve. 

It  must  fulfill  its  rectoral  office  sjiecially  as  a  restraint  upon  sin. 
It  must,  therefore,  be  wisely  adjusted  in  its  measure  to  this  specific 
end.  Two  facts  condition  its  restraining  force:  one,  the  strength  of 
our  tendency  to  sin ;  the  other,  the  state  of  our  motivity  conditioning 
to  penalty  as  an  impending  infliction.  Both  of  these  facts  facts. 
deeply  concern  the  measure  of  penalty  required  by  the  highest  inter- 
ests of  moral  government.  With  a  strong  tendency  to  sin,  and  a  feeble 
motivity  to  the  imminence  of  penalty — facts  so  broadly  and  deeply 
written  in  human  history — penalties  must  be  the  severer.  The 
interests  of  moral  govei'ument  may  require  them  even  in  the  full 
measure  of  the  demerit  of  sin.  Up  to  this  limit,  whatever  God  may 
see  to  be  requisite  to  these  interests  will  not  fail  of  his  appointment 
as  the  penalty  of  sin.  All  the  fundamental  principles  which  deter- 
mine his  institution  of  the  wisest  and  best  government  must  so 
determine  him  respecting  the  measure  of  penalty. 

II.  Necessity  for  Penalty. 
The  physical  evil  and  moral  wretchedness  which  follow  upon  our 
sinful  conduct,  but  really  as  consequent  to  our  constitu-  go„g  gy,Lg 
tion  and  relations,  are  not  strictly  of  the  nature  of  pun-  ^ot  penal. 
ishment,  though  such  is  a  very  common  view.  That  sin  brings 
misery  is   in  the  order  of  the  divine  constitution  of  things.     It  is 


i>4  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

not  clear  that  there  could  be  such  a  constitution  of  moral  beings 
that  suffering  would  not  follow  upon  sin.  Indeed,  the  contrary  is 
manifest.  But  what  so  follows  as  a  natural  result,  though  in  an 
order  of  things  divinely  constituted,  is  not  strictly  penal.  Such 
naturally  consequent  evil  may  have  in  the  divine  plan  an  important 
ministry  in  the  economy  of  moral  government.  But  punishment, 
strictly,  is  a  divine  infliction  of  penalty  upon  sin  in  the  order  of  a 
judicial  administration.  The  necessity  for  penalty,  therefore,  is 
not  from  necessary  causation,  but  from  sufficient  moral  grounds. 
Penalty  has  such  a  necessity  in  the  interest  of  moral  government, 
except  as  its  office  may  be  fulfilled  by  some  substitutional  measure. 
In  the  moral  realm  there  is  a  divine  moral  Ruler  ;  and  the  vital  truth 
of  the  present  question  must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  his  perfec- 
tions and  rectoral  relations.  In  such  light  the  moral  necessity  for 
penalty  is  manifest. 

1.  Froyn  its  Rectoral  Office. — Omitting  other  things  for  the  pres- 
ent, penalty  has  a  necessary  office  in  the  good  of  moral  govern- 
ment. Justice  itself  is  directly  concerned  therein.  Nor  is  any 
requirement  of  justice  more  imperative.  Sin  must  be  restrained 
and  moral  order  maintained  for  the  honor  of  God  and  the  good  of 
moral  beings.  The  innocent  must  be  protected  against  injury  and 
wrong.  Justice  cannot  overlook  these  profound  interests.  In  such 
neglect  it  would  cease  to  be  justice.  It  must  sacredly  guard  them. 
A  necessary  power  for  their  protection  lies  in  its  penalty.  This 
it  may  not  omit,  except  through  some  measure  equally  fulfilling 
the  same  rectoral  office,  while  forgiveness  is  granted  to  repenting 
sinners. 

2.  From  the  Divine  Holiness. — God,  as  a  perfectly  holy  being, 
must  give  support  to  righteousness  and  place  barriers  in  the  way  of 
sin.  He  must  seek,  in  the  use  of  all  proper  means,  the  prevention 
or  utmost  restraint  of  sin.  But  in  the  moral  state  of  humanity 
penalty  is  a  necessary  means  for  such  limitation.  Lift  the  restraint 
of  its  imminence  from  the  soul  and  conscience  of  men,  and,  wicked 
as  they  now  are,  they  would  be  immensely  worse.  Even  a  pre- 
sumptive hope  of  impunity  emboldens  sin.  The  divine  forbear- 
ance in  the  deferment  of  merited  punishment  is  made  the  occasion 
of  a  deeper  impenitence  and  a  more  persistent  impiety.  "  Be- 
cause sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not  executed  speedily,  there- 
fore the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil." ' 
And  a  release  from  all  amenability  to  penalty  would  be  to  many  a 
divine  license  to  the  freest  vicious  indulgence.  The  divine  holiness, 
therefore,  must  require  the  restraint  of  sin  through  the  ministry  of 

'  Eecles.  viii,  11. 


NECESSITY  FOR  ATONEMENT.  95 

penalty,  except  as  the  interest  of  righteousness  may  be  protected 
through  some  other  means. 

3.  From  the  Divine  Goodness. — Nor  less  must  the  divine  good- 
ness support  this  office  of  justice.  Sin  brings  misery.  It  must 
bring  misery,  even  in  the  absence  of  all  infliction  of  penalty.  The 
race  would  be  far  more  wretched  in  the  absence  of  all  penalty  than 
it  is  under  an  amenability  to  its  rectoral  inflictions.  While,  there- 
fore, God  punishes  with  reluctance,  and  with  profound  sympatliy  for 
the  suffering  sinner,  yet,  as  a  God  of  love,  he  must  maintain  the  office 
of  penalty  in  the  interest  of  human  happiness.  The  only  ground 
of  its  surrender,  even  on  the  part  of  the  divine  goodness,  must  be 
found  in  some  vicarious  measure  equally  answering  the  same  end. 

4.  A  Real  Xecessity  for  Atonement. — The  result  is,  the  necessity 
for  an  atonement.  Without  such  a  provision  sinners  cannot  be  for- 
given and  saved.  The  impossibility  is  concluded  by  the  facts  and 
principles  which  this  chapter  unfolds.  The  necessity  for  the 
redemptive  mediation  of  Christ  lies  ultimately  in  the  perfections  of 
God  as  moral  ruler.     It  is,  therefore,  most  imperative. 

5.  Nature  of  the  Ato?iemenf  Indicated. — We  have  not  yet  reached 
the  place  for  the  more  formal  discussion  of  the  true  theory  of  atone- 
ment ;  yet  certain  facts  and  principles  have  already  come  into  view 
which  so  clearly  indicate  its  nature  that  their  doctrinal  meaning 
may  properly  be  noted  here. 

AYe  have  the  truth  of  a  divine  moral  government  as  the  ground- 
fact  in  the  necessity  for  an  atonement.  We  have  found  by  its  neces- 
the  facts  and  principles  of  such  a  government  strongly  ^'■^^• 
affirmative  of  this  necessity.  They  thus  respond  to  the  explicit 
affirmations  of  Scripture  thereon.  Further,  we  have  found  this 
necessity  to  be  grounded  in  the  profoundest  interests  of  moral 
government,  for  the  protection  of  which  the  jDcnalties  of  the  divine 
justice  have  a  necessary  function.  Here  we  have  the  real  hinder- 
ance  to  a  mere  administrative  forgiveness,  and,  therefore,  the  real 
necessity  for  an  atonement.  The  true  office  of  atonement  follows 
accordingly.  The  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ  answer  for  the 
obligation  of  justice  and  the  office  of  penalty  in  the  interests  of 
moral  government,  so  that  such  interest  shall  not  suffer  through  the 
forgiveness  of  sin.  This  is,  however,  not  the  whole  service  of  the 
redemptive  mediation  of  Christ,  but  a  chief  fact  in  its  more  specific 
office,  and  one  answering  to  the  deepest  necessity  for  an  atonement. 

The  nature  of  the  atonement  is  thus  determined.     The  vicarious 
sufferings  of  Christ  are  a  provisory  substitute  for  pen-  its  real  xat- 
alty,  and  not  the  actual  punishment  of  sin.     He  is  not   ^'^*^- 
such  a  substitute  in  penalty  as  to  preserve  the  same  retributive 


96  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

administration  of  justice  as  in  the  actual  punishment  of  sinners.  The 
sufferings  of  Christ,  endured  for  us  as  sinners,  so  fulfill  the  obli- 
gation of  justice  and  the  office  of  penalty  in  the  interest  of  moral 
government  as  to  render  forgiveness,  on  proper  conditions,  entirely 
consistent  therewith.     Such  is  the  nature  of  the  atonement. 

Such  a  view  fully  answers  to  the  relation  between  God  and 
IN  ACCORD  nien  as  sovereign  and  subjects,  and  to  the  facts  of  their 
WITH  FACTS,  sinfulness  and  subjection  to  his  righteous  displeasure 
and  judicial  condemnation.  Sin  offends  his  justice  and  love,  incurs 
his  righteous  displeasure,  and  constitutes  in  them  punitive  desert. 
Such  are  the  facts  which  the  Scriptures  so  fully  recognize.  And 
God  as  a  righteous  ruler  must  inflict  merited  penalty  upon  sin,  not, 
indeed,  in  the  gratification  of  any  mere  personal  resentment,  nor 
in  the  satisfaction  of  an  absolute  retributive  justice,  but  in  the 
interest  of  moral  government,  or  find  some  rectorally  compensatory 
measure  for  the  remission  of  penalty.  Such  a  measure  there  is  in 
the  redemptive  mediation  of  Christ.  The  conclusion  gives  us  an 
atonement,  not  by  an  absolute  substitution  in  punishment,  but  by 
a  provisory  substitution  in  suffering. 


SCHEMES  WITHOUT  ATONEMENT.  97 


CHAPTER   III. 

SCHEMES  WITHOUT  ATONEMENT. 

Some  hold  the  fact  of  salvation  who  yet  deny  a  vicarious  atone- 
ment. Such  consistently  deny  its  necessity.  There  is,  in  their 
view,  no  element  of  divine  justice,  nor  interest  of  moral  government, 
which  makes  it  necessary.  Sin  may  be  forgiven  or  ultimate  salva- 
tion attained  without  it.  These  great  blessings  have  other  grounds 
or  modes.  In  accord  with  this  position,  and  as  consistency  re- 
quires, certain  grounds  or  modes  are  alleged  as  entirely  sufpcient 
for  our  forgiveness  or  future  happiness.  Thus  we  have  schemes  of 
salvation  without  an  atonement  in  Christ,  and  in  the  denial  of  its 
necessity.     It  may  be  proper  to  notice  some  of  them. 

I.  Blessedness  After  the  Penalty. 

Universalism  and  Calvinism  differ  widely  in  their  completed  sys- 
tems— if  we  may  speak  of  the  former  as  a  system.  They  are  infi- 
nitely apart  respecting  the  demerit  of  sin  and  the  measure  of  its 
merited  penalty.  Yet  the  two  are  at  one  in  the  cardinal  princi- 
ple that  sin  must  be  punished  according  to  its  desert.  We  speak 
of  these  systems  in  their  more  regular  form,  not  in  all  their  phases. 
But  such  a  principle  in  Universalism,  as  in  any  non-atonement 
scheme,  gives  no  place  for  salvation. 

1.  Salvation  Excluded. — In  any  deep  sense  of  the  term,  salvation 
is  possible  only  as  a  real  forgiveness  of  sin,  or  its  substitutional 
punishment,  is  possible.  Where  the  penalty  is  fully  suffered  by 
the  offender,  as  Universalism  asserts  it  must  be,  there  is  no  salva- 
tion. When  a  criminal  has  suffered  the  full  penalty  awarded  him 
his  discharge  is  no  matter  of  grace,  and  his  further  punishment 
would  be  an  injustice.  There  is  neither  forgiveness  nor  salvation 
in  his  release.  On  the  scheme  of  Universalism  the  same  must  be 
true  in  every  instance  of  divine  penalty.  Such  a  scheme  is  false 
to  the  clearly  revealed  fact  of  forgiveness;  false  to  the  soteriology 
of  the  Scriptures.  The  fact  is  deeply  wrought  into  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  that  he  is  a  Saviour  through  the  forgiveness  of  sin;  a  Saviour 
from  the  punishment  of  sin;  and  such  a  Saviour  through  an  atone- 
ment in  his  blood.  These  facts  have  been  set  forth  and  verified  by 
the  Scriptures,  and  need  not  here  be  repeated. 


98  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

2.  Final  Blessedness  really  a  Salvation. — The  denial  of  ultimate 
happiness  as  a  salvation  is  a  logical  implication  of  this  scheme. 
The  same  is  true  whether  merited  punishment  is  limited  to  this 
life  or  continues  for  a  greater  or  less  time  in  the  next.  There  is 
no  salvation  in  the  termination  of  sugh  a  punishment,  whether  in 
the  present  or  future  world.  Justice  has  no  further  penal  claim. 
And  while  the  happiness  then  beginning  and  flowing  on  forever 
might  be  far  above  any  merit  in  us,  still  it  could  not  be  a  salvation. 
Certainly  it  could  be  no  such  a  salvation  as  the  Scriptures  reveal  in 
Christ.  In  the  truest  and  deepest  sense  future  happiness  is  a  sal- 
vation through  his  atonement.'  Hence  the  scheme  which  precludes 
this  fact  cannot  be  true. 

3.  Impossible  under  Endless  Penalty. — A  scheme  of  ultimate 
and  endless  happiness,  after  a  full  personal  satisfaction  of  justice 
in  penalty,  must  limit  the  duration  of  punishment,  however  long 
it  may  continue  in  a  future  state.  If  penalty  be  eternal  there  can 
be  no  after-state  of  happiness.  Here  arises  a  great  question,  the 
discussion  of  which  would  lead  us  quite  aside  from  the  subject  in 
hand.  We  simply  note  in  passing  that  the  Scriptures  exjDress  the 
duration  of  penalty  in  terms  most  significant  of  its  eternity.  What 
seems  specially  decisive  is,  that  it  is  so  expressed  when  placed  in 
immediate  contrast  with  the  endless  reward  of  the  righteous: 
**And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment:  but  the 
righteous  into  life  eternal."  "^  The  same  original  word — al<l)viov — 
expresses  the  duration  in  the  two  cases;  and  there  is  no  more  ap- 
parent reason  for  its  limitation  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter. 
In  such  a  destiny  on  account  of  sin  there  can  be  no  state  of  happi- 
ness after  the  penalty.  Nor  can  the  necessity  for  an  atonement  be 
so  set  aside. 

II.  Saltation  through  Sovereign  Forgiveness. 

The  necessity  for  an  atonement  is  denied  on  the  assumption  that 
God,  in  mere  sovereignty  or  on  a  merely  personal  disposition  of 
kindness,  and  without  regard  to  the  ends  of  justice  in  the  interest 
of  moral  government,  may  and  does  freely  forgive  sin.  There  are 
many  objections  to  this  view,  and  such  as  entirely  discredit  it. 

1.  An  Assumptio?i  against  Facts. — That  God  forgives  and  saves 
sinners  on  his  mere  sovereignty  or  pleasure,  and  without  regard  to 
the  requirements  of  moral  government,  is  without  proof,  and  the 
sheerest  assumption.  Moreover,  the  facts  of  a  providential  history, 
already  filling  many  centuries,  are  full  in  its  contradiction.     Were 

'  Johniii,  14-16;  vi,  47-51;  x,  37,  38;  Rom.  v,  30,  21;  vi,  23;  2  Tim.  ii,  10; 
Heb.  V,  9;  ix,  15;  1  Pet.  v,  10;  Eev.  v,  9,  10;  vii,' 14-17.  '•'  Matt,  xxv,  46. 


SCHEMES  WITHOUT  ATONEMENT.  99 

the  mere  pleasure  of  God,  as  a  kindly  personal  disposition,  his  only 
law,  as  this  position  assumes,  there  would  be  no  instance  of  pun- 
ishment. But  there  are  many  such.  No  one  can  rationally  deny 
it.  Now  these  facts  are  contradictory  to  such  a  mode  of  forgiveness. 
As  the  generations  press  to  their  altars  with  the  sense  of  sin  and 
with  sacrifices  of  atonement  the  voice  of  humanity,  in  the  deepest 
utterances  of  its  religious  consciousness,  pronounces  against  it. 
Kevelation,  in  words  the  most  explicit  and  emphatic,  confirms  the 
judgment  of  humanity. 

2.  Contrary  to  Divine  Government. — There  is  a  moral  govern- 
ment. There  is  such  a  government  as  divinely  instituted.  It  is 
without  any  provision  for  a  mere  administrative  forgiveness.  Nor 
can  it  admit  any  such  forgiveness,  because  it  would  be  contrary  to 
its  own  principles  and  measures.  God,  in  full  view  of  our  moral 
state,  and  with  infinite  regard  for  our  good,  has  instituted  his  gov- 
ernment in  adjustment  to  our  duty  and  welfare.  Penalty  itself 
arises  out  of  the  requirement  and  interest  of  moral  government. 
Hence  its  suspension  without  regard  to  any  new  provision  would  be 
contrary  to  government  as  divinely  instituted,  and  also  to  the 
divine  perfections  in  so  ordering  its  provisions.  Further,  it  would 
set  the  divine  administration  in  direct  opposition  to  the  divine 
word.  In  clearest  terms  God  has  announced  the  penalties  of  sin. 
Now  it  is  presumed  that  he  will  sovereignly  interfere,  and,  without 
regard  to  any  new  provision,  grant  a  universal  forgiveness.  Surely 
it  is  a  bold  assumption  that  God  will  so  contradict  himself  and  set 
his  administration  against  his  own  law. 

3.  Subversive  of  all  Government. — If  forgiveness  is  so  granted 
it  must  be  universal.  There  could  be  no  other  law  of  salvation. 
And,  otherwise,  it  would  neither  answer  for  our  need  nor  for  the 
divine  impartiality.  But  with  such  universal  forgiveness  govern- 
ment really  no  longer  exists.  Justice  makes  no  practical  distinction 
between  obedience  and  sin. 

A  law  of  duty  without  a  penalty  for  transgression  is  a  mere  ad- 
visory rule  of  life,  and,  for  us,  void  of  necessary  enforc-  law  withoct 
ing  sanction.  It  would  virtually  say  to  every  man,  Do  penalty. 
as  you  please;  when  it  is  certain  that  most  men  would  please  to  do 
wrong  and  moral  ruin  be  the  result.  How  long  could  civil  govern- 
ment be  thus  maintained?  A  partial  uncertainty  of  penalty,  a 
presumptive  hope  of  impunity,  emboldens  crime.  The  license  of  a 
universal  forgiveness  would  open  the  flood-gates  of  evil  and  hasten 
both  social  and  political  ruin.  As  a  race  we  are  even  more  proi^ense 
to  the  disregard  of  moral  duty  and  to  sin  against  God.  It  may  be 
claimed,  and  freely  granted,  that  the  grace  of  divine  forgiveness 


100  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY, 

is  a  most  weighty  reason  for  grateful  piety.  But  the  common 
moral  apathy  would  be  insensible  to  its  persuasive  force.  Facts 
clearly  show  that  with  most  men  the  divine  goodness  pleads  in  vain. 
Even  the  cross,  with  the  admission  of  its  atoning  love,  so  pleads 
in  vain.  Delays  of  punishment,  with  salvation  for  their  end,  are 
perverted  to  a  more  persistent  evil  doing.  For  such  a  race  the  free 
remission  of  all  penalty  would  be  subversive  of  all  government, 
and  whelm  in  ruin  the  profound  moral  interests  which  the  divine 
government  must  conserve.  Such  inevitable  consequences  utterly 
discredit  the  assumption  of  forgiveness  and  salvation  on  mere 
sovereignty. 

III.  Forgiveness  on  Repentance. 

It  is  specially  urged  that  repentance  is  a  proper  and  entirely 
sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness,  and,  hence,  that  there  is  no  neces- 
sity for  an  atonement.  This  is  a  common  position  with  rational- 
istic schemes. 

1.  Repentance  Necessary. — The  necessity  for  a  true  repentance, 
in  order  to  forgiveness  and  salvation,  is  not  only  conceded,  but 
firmly  maintained  in  any  proper  doctrine  of  atonement.  No  pro- 
vision of  a  redemptive  economy  could  supersede  this  necessity. 
Impenitence  after  sinning  is  self-justification  and  the  very  spirit  of 
rebellion ;  while  penitence  is  the  only  self-condemnation  and  the 
only  return  to  obedience.  There  must,  therefore,  be  a  genuine  repent- 
ance. There  can  be  neither  forgiveness  nor  any  real  redemption 
from  sin  without  it. 

2.  The  Only  Kind  Naturally  Possible. — The  logic  of  this  ques- 
tion will  not  concede  the  gratuitous  assumption  of  a  true  repentance 
as  possible  in  the  resources  of  our  own  nature.  A  soul  with  the 
disabilities  of  depravity,  and  under  the  power  of  sin,  cannot  so  re- 
pent. This  accords  with  the  facts  of  our  moral  condition  as  clearly 
given  in  the  Scriptures,  and  also  with  a  common  experience  and 
observation.  There  is  a  certain  kind  of  repentance  within  our  own 
power.  We  instinctively  shrink  from  punishment,  and,  therefore, 
necessarily  regret  the  sins  which  expose  us  to  its  infliction.  But 
such  regret  implies  no  true  sense  of  sin,  and  constitutes  no  neces- 
sary repentance.  It  is  merely  what  the  Scriptures  designate  as  the 
sorrow  of  the  world  working  death,  and  so  discriminate  it  from  a 
true  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  working  repentance  unto  salvation. '  The 
former  repentance,  and  the  only  kind  naturally  possible,  is  no 
proper  ground  of  forgiveness.  Nor  has  it  any  true  redemptive 
power  in  the  moral  life. 

1  2  Cor.  vii,  9,  10. 


SCHEMES  WITHOUT  ATONEMENT.  101 

3.  Such  Repentance  Inevitable. — As  the  immediate  product  of 
our  mental  constitution  such  a  repentance  is  inevitable,  and  lience 
must  be  universal.  As  we  necessarily  shrink  from  penalty,  so  we 
necessarily  regret  the  evil  deeds  which  subject  us  to  its  infliction. 
But  what  so  arises  naturally,  and  without  any  element  of  true  con- 
trition, can  be  no  sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness.  Besides,  as 
a  necessary  product,  and  therefore  universal,  it  would  involve  a 
universal  forgiveness.  The  result  would  be  the  subversion  of  all 
government,  just  as  on  a  universal  sovereign  forgiveness.  With 
such  a  policy  no  civil  government  could  be  maintained.  Nor  could 
a  divine  moral  government  be  so  maintained. 

Nor  is  there  validity  in  any  rejoinder  that,  as  the  Gospel  freely 
oifers  forgiveness  on  a  repentance  possible  to  all,  it  might  hence 
be  universal.  This  is  true,  but  only  in  an  economy  of  grace 
which  provides  for  a  true  repentance  and  gives  to  the  ministry 
of  forgiveness  the  moral  support  of  the  redemptive  mediation  of 
Christ. 

4.  Without  any  Deep  Sense  of  Sin. — In  the  repentance  natu- 
rally possible  sin  is  neither  felt  nor  confessed  in  a  true  sense  of  its 
intrinsic  evil,  but  only  selfishly,  on  account  of  its  result  in  personal 
suffering.  It  therefore  can  have  no  real  redemptive  or  reformative 
power  in  the  moral  life.  And  even  were  forgiveness  permissible 
on  the  ground  of  so  defective  a  repentance,  a  true  salvation  is  not 
so  possible.  Forgiveness  so  easily  granted  never  could  bring  the 
turpitude  of  sin  home  to  the  moral  consciousness.  To  this  extent 
would  be  the  loss  of  moral  benefit.  The  intenser  the  sense  of  sin, 
and  the  profounder  the  grateful  love  for  the  mercy  of  forgiveness, 
the  more  thorough  is  the  moral  recovery  and  salvation.  It  is  easy 
to  decide  where  there  are  such  experiences.  They  are  realized 
only  through  the  helping  and  forgiving  grace  of  redemption.  As 
souls  gather  around  the  cross  they  have  the  deepest  contrition  for 
sin  and  the  most  grateful  love  for  the  gracious  forgiveness.'  Innu- 
merable facts  of  religious  experience  so  witness.  And  even  if  we 
could  set  aside  the  deeper  necessity  for  an  atonement,  there  is  yet 
a  profound  moral  necessity  for  the  redemptive  mediation  of  Christ 
in  order  to  the  moral  recovery  and  salvation  of  the  soul. 

5.  True  Repentance  only  hy  Grace. — The  moral  disabilities 
consequent  upon  depravity  and  sin  render  a  true  repent- 

.  Ml         •  ii  (.  \  NEED  OK  IIKLP. 

ance  impossible  in  the  resources  oi  our  own   nature. 

Such  a  state  is  one  of  spiritual  blindness,  insensibility,  impotence, 

death.     So  the  Scriptures  represent  it.^     Hence,  they  attribute  a 

'  Ullman  :  The  Sinlessness  of  Jesus,  p.  251 . 

2  John  vi,  44  ;  Rom.  v,  6  ;  viii,  3,  4 ;  Eph.  ii,  1,  2  ;  iv,  18  ;  Col.  ii,  13. 
9 


102  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

genuine  repentance,  both  in  its  privilege  and  possibility,  to  the  grace 
of  the  atonement  and  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  so  procured. 
Thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer  and  to  rise  again,  that  repentance 
and  remission  of  sins  might  be  preached  in  his  name.  And  a 
special  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  a  mission  provided  through  the 
redemptive  mediation  of  Christ,  is  to  bring  the  sense  of  sin  home 
to  the  conscience  in  a  conviction  necessary  to  a  true  repentance.  So 
Christ,  having  redeemed  us  with  his  blood,  is  exalted  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour  to  give  repentance  and  remission  of  sins.' 

The  gracious  ability  and  disposition  to  a  true  repentance  are 
THE  HELP  IN  through  the  evangelical  mission  of  the  Spirit.  Only 
CHRIST.  thi^ig  have   we  an    explanation   of    the   mighty   work 

wrought  on  that  memorable  day  of  Pentecost.  The  Spirit  was  shed 
forth,  not  only  upon  the  apostles  in  the  power  of  preaching,  but 
also  upon  the  people  in  the  power  of  religious  conviction.  And  no 
one  who  denies  this  mission  of  the  Spirit  as  a  procurement  of  the 
redemptive  mediation  of  Christ  can  account  for  the  converting 
power  of  the  Gospel  on  that  day  of  Pentecost  or  for  the  work  of 
religious  revival  in  the  history  of  Christianity.  Hence  it  is  an 
utterly  futile  attempt  to  supersede  the  necessity  for  an  atonement 
by  the  sufficiency  of  repentance,  while  the  repentance  itself  is  possi- 
ble only  through  the  grace  of  the  atonement.^ 

IV.  Some  Special  Facts. 

There  are  a  few  facts  specially  urged  against  the  necessity  for  an 
atonement  which  should  have  a  brief  notice.  They  are  such  as 
may  be  presented  in  a  plausible  light,  but  are  without  logical  force 
as  urged  in  the  argument. 

1.  Forgiving  One  Another. — We  are  required  to  forgive  one  an- 
other, and  without  any  regard  to  an  atonement.  Now  it  is  claimed 
that  if  God  requires  us  so  to  forgive  he  will  himself  thus  forgive.' 
Respecting  our  own  duty  no  issue  is  made.  Such  a  requirement  is 
clearly  in  the  Scriptures."  But  there  is  nothing  either  in  the 
nature  or  the  manner  of  it  which  furnishes  any  ground  for  the 
inference  that  the  divine  forgiveness  is  without  regard  to  an  atone- 
ment.    Indeed,  one  of  the  texts  given  in  the  reference,  and  which 

'  Luke  xxiv,  46,  47  ;  John  xvi,  7-11  ;  Acts  v,  31. 

'^  On  the  insufficiency  of  repentance  as  a  ground  of  forgiveness  :  Butler  : 
Analogy  of  Religion,  part  ii,  chap,  v,  4,  5  ;  Magee  :  Atonement  and  Sacrifice, 
dissertations  iv,  v  ;  Watson  :  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  pp.  96-103  ;  Gil- 
bert :  The  Christian  Atonement,  pp.  217,  466  ;  Eandles  :  Substitution  :  Atone- 
ment, pp.  179-186. 

'  Worcester  :  The  Atoning  Sacrifice,  pp.  127-139. 

'  Matt,  xviii,  21,  22  ;  Eph.  iv,  32  ;   Col.  iii,  13. 


SCHEMES  WITHOUT  ATONEMENT.  103 

"Worcester  cites  for  his  position,  is  entirely  to  the  contrary  :  "  For- 
giving one  another,  even  as  God  for  Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven 

you." 

Account  is  also  made  of  texts  in  which  there  is  a  coupling  of  our 
forgiving  with  the  divine  forgiving.  If  we  forgive,  we  forgiven  as 
shall  be  forgiven  ;  if  we  forgive  not,  we  shall  not  be  forgiving. 
forgiven.^  But  the  matter  is  still  our  duty  of  forgiving  one  an- 
other, accompanied,  indeed,  with  its  conditional  relation  to  the 
divine  forgiveness,  but  with  no  intimation  that  this  is  without 
regard  to  the  atonement  in  Christ. 

There  is  another  view  of  this  case,  and  one  decisive  against  the 
inference  adverse  to  the  necessity  for  an  atonement,  q^ly  a  per- 
This  duty  of  forgiveness  is  the  duty  of  private  persons  ^onal  duty. 
simply,  and  without  any  rectoral  prerogative  or  obligation.  One 
must  so  forgive,  as  the  offense  concerns  one's  self  only.  Even  the 
Christian  ruler  must  so  forgive.  But  who  ever  thinks  of  his  carry- 
ing this  duty  into  his  administration?  When  the  offense  is  a  crime 
in  the  law  it  has  public  relations,  and  he  has  rectoral  obligations  in 
the  case.  What  he  may  and  should  do  in  a  merely  private  relation 
he  must  not  do  as  a  minister  of  the  law.  God  is  moral  ruler. 
Hence  our  forgiving  one  another  has  no  such  analogy  to  the  divine 
forgiveness  as  to  be  the  ground  of  an  inference  adverse  to  the  neces- 
sity for  an  atonement. 

2.  Parental  Forgiveness. — There  is  properly  such  a  forgiveness, 
yet  there  must  be  a  limit  even  here,  the  disregard  of  which  brings 
serious  evil.  Besides,  the  family  circle  is  small,  and  rather  private 
than  public  in  its  economy.  It  is  constituted  in  peculiarly  intimate 
and  affectionate  relations.  It  is,  therefore,  eminently  a  sphere  for 
governing  through  the  moral  influences  hence  arising  or  so  rendered 
possible.  But  what  may  be  fitting  here  is  wholly  inadmissible  in  a 
government  of  broad  domain,  and  conditioned  by  very  different 
influences  and  tendencies.  The  economy  of  the  family  will  not 
answer  for  the  government  of  the  State,  much  less  for  the  divine 
government  of  the  world  or  the  universe.  God  is  ruler  in  a  uni- 
versal moral  realm,  and  no  propriety  of  mere  parental  forgiveness 
can  prove  that  he  may  consistently  forgive  without  an  atonement. 

3.  Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son. — The  attempt  to  press  this 
beautiful  parable  into  the  service  of  anti-atonement  rationalistic 
schemes  is  in  the  natural  movement  of  rationalistic  ^'••-'^• 
thought.  ''It  is  remarkable  how  perfectly  this  parable  precludes 
every  idea  of  the  necessity  of  vicarious  suffering,  in  order  to  the 
pardon  of  the  penitent  sinner.     Had  it  been  the  special  purpose  of 

'  Matt,  vi,  12,  14,  15  ;  Luke  vi,  37. 


104  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

our  Lord  to  provide  an  antidote  for  such  a  doctrine  it  is  difficult 
to  conceive  what  could  have  been  devised  better  adapted  to  that 
end/"  Even  Mr.  Chubb,  certainly  without  much  sympathy  with 
Christianity,  has  a  treatise  on  this  parable,  in  which  he  insists  that 
by  special  design  it  teaches  the  sufficiency  of  repentance  as  the 
ground  of  forgiveness ;  that  the  free  and  gracious  forgiveness  of 
this  father  exemplifies  the  free  and  gracious  forgiveness  of  the  heav- 
enly Father  ;  and  that  such  is  at  once  the  dictate  of  reason  and  the 
Gospel  of  Christ. 

But  it  is  certainly  a  queer  kind  of  exegesis  which  claims  a  passage 
QUEER  EXE-  ^^  Scrlpturc  that  is  entirely  silent  upon  the  atonement 
GEsis.  as  decisive  against  both  its  reality  and  necessity.     There 

is  the  greater  violation  of  the  laws  of  interpretation,  because  so 
many  passages  do  specially  treat  the  atonement,  and  in  a  manner 
decisive  of  its  reality  and  necessity.  Besides,  all  the  f  reeness  of  the 
divine  forgiveness  which  this  parable  represents,  and  which  we  grate- 
fully accept,  is  in  the  fullest  consistency  with  the  doctrine  of  a  vica- 
rious atonement. 

There  is  in  this  hasty  and  illogical  method  a  neglect  of  vital  and 
FALSE  ANAL-  determining  facts,  and  the  assumption  of  a  completeness 
oGY.  of  analogy  which  does  not  exist.     The  father  in  this 

parable  appears  and  acts  simply  as  such.  Had  he  been  a  ruler  also, 
and  his  son  a  criminal  in  the  law,  then,  however  gracious  his 
fatherly  affection,  his  rectoral  obligations  would  have  required 
recognition  and  observance.  The  vicious  logic  of  this  hasty  method 
is  thus  manifest.  It  wrongly  assumes  that  God's  sole  relation  to 
moral  beings  is  that  of  Father.  This  error  utterly  vitiates  the  con- 
clusion. As  we  have  previously  noted,  God  is  a  moral  Kuler  as 
well  as  a  gracious  Father.  Here  is  the  vital,  yet  utterly  neglected, 
distinction  between  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly  Father.  And 
what  God  might  do  simply  as  a  Father,  he  may  not  do  as  moral 
Kuler. 

Nor  do  these  facts  rob  this  parable  of  its  lesson  of  grace.  It  is 
THE  LESSON  OF  ^^11  truc  that  thc  doctrine  of  atonement  is  in  the  f  ull- 
GRACE.  est  consistency  with  such  a  lesson.     As  this  father  gra- 

ciously forgave  his  repenting  son,  so  does  God  graciously  forgive  his 
repenting  children.  The  one  fact  illustrates  the  other.  But  the 
Scriptures  decide,  and  reason  accords  therewith,  that  it  is  through 
the  atonement  in  Christ  that  God  so  forgives.  He  had  no  need  for 
an  atonement  in  his  fatherly  disposition,  but  only  in  the  require- 
ments of  his  rectoral  offices.  Now  that  an  atonement  has  been 
made,  he  may  and  does  forgive  his  repenting  children  in  all  the 
'  Worcester :  The  Atoning  Sacrifice,  p.  215. 


SCHEMES  WITHOUT  ATONEMENT.  105 

fullness  of  his  paternal  grace  and  love.  Thus  we  hold  the  full 
meaning  of  this  lesson.  We  admire  its  grace.  There  is  one  of  an 
infinitely  deeper  pathos.  We  read  it  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  as 
the  atoning  provision  of  the  Father's  love,  that  he  might  reach  us 
in  a  gracious  forgiveness. 

9  ' 


106  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT. 

I.  Preliminaries. 

1.  Earlier  Views  of  Atonetnent. — In  the  earlier  history  of  the 
Church  the  redemption  in  Christ  was  viewed  rather  as  a  fact  than 
as  a  doctrine.  It  was  then,  as  it  must  ever  be^  the  central  truth  of 
the  Gospel.  Christ  was  every- where  proclaimed  as  a  Saviour  through 
his  sacrificial  death.  Forgiveness  and  salvation  were  freely  offered 
in  his  blood.  But  the  great  truth  had  its  proclamation  in  the  terms 
of  Scripture  rather  than  in  the  formulas  of  doctrine.  This  was 
proper,  as  it  was  natural.  It  is  proper  now,  and  will  ever  be  so. 
Eedemption,  in  all  the  preciousness  of  its  truth  and  grace,  has  a 
living  association  with  its  own  Scripture  terms  ;  and  a  disregard  of 
this  connection  could  not  be  other  than  a  serious  detriment.  There 
were  early  utterances  which  well  accord  with  strictly  doctrinal 
views  ;  still  there  was  no  formal  construction  of  a  doctrine.' 

Then  came  the  singular  notion  of  redemption  by  a  ransom  to 
Satan.     It  is  not  agreed  when,  nor  with  whom,  it  orig- 

NOTION  OF  A  .  O  '  '  O 

RANSOM  TO  inated.  Some  find  in  Irenseus,  of  the  second  century, 
SATAN.  i^g  g^g^  representative,  while  others  would  entirely  clear 

him  of  such  a  view.  It  certainly  had  a  representative  in  the  very 
gifted  but  speculative  Origen,  of  the  third  century.  Nor  did  it  run 
its  course  without  finding  entertainment  in  the  great  and  versatile 
mind  of  Augustine.  It  flourished  in  the  patristic  period,  and  held 
its  position  until  the  beginning  of  the  scholastic,  or  the  time  of 
Anselm,  late  in  the  eleventh  century.^ 

This  very  strange  opinion  was,  probably,  first  suggested  by  certain 
SUGGESTION  OF  tcxts  of  Scrlpturc  which  represent  us  as  in  captivity  or 
THE  VIEW.  bondage  to  Satan,  and  our  redemption  by  Christ  as  a 
deliverance  from  his  possession  and  power.  These  representations 
may  have  suggested  the  idea  of  a  right  to  us  in  Satan — such  a  right 

'  Oxenham:  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  pp.  112-114  ;  Knapp:  Chris- 
tian Theology,  p.  400  ;  Smeaton :  The  Apostles^  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  pp. 
480-493  ;  Dale  :  The  Atonement,  pp.  269-278. 

^  Hagenbach  :  History  of  Doctrines,  vol.  i,  pp.  192,  193  ;  Shedd  :  History  of 
Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  ii,  pp.  212-226  ;  Oxenham  :  The  Catholic  Doctrine  of 
the  Atonement,  pp.  114-124 


THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT.  107 

as  that  in  which  slaves  or  captives  in  war  were  held.  He  had  con- 
quered us,  and  brought  us  into  his  possession.  In  the  prevalent 
ideas  of  the  time  this  was  a  valid  and  rightful  possession.  Hence, 
probably,  came  the  idea  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  ransom  to  Satan 
for  the  canceling  of  this  claim.  But  this  notion  could  not  be  per- 
manent, and  the  marvel  is  that  it  continued  so  long.  It  is  so  incon- 
gruous with  all  cardinal  facts  so  related  to  the  atonement  as  to  be 
decisive  of  its  nature,  that  its  dismission  was  a  necessary  result  of 
their  intelligent  ai^preheusion. 

2.  Inception  of  a  Scientific  Treatment. — The  treatment  of  the 
atonement  in  a  scientific  or  more  exact  doctrinal  man-  ^ur  deis 
ner  really  began  with  Anselm,  late  in  the  eleventh  cen-  ^wmo. 
tury.  His  book,'  though  but  a  small  one,  is  not  improperly  char- 
acterized as  an  "  epoch-making  book."  It  fell  far  short  of  control- 
ling the  doctrine  of  the  Church  on  the  atonement,  yet  it  exerted  a 
strong  influence  upon  after  discussions  and  opinions,  whether  accord- 
ant or  in  dissent.  It  furnished,  though  not  in  the  full  scientific 
sense  usually  claimed,  a  basis  for  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  as  con- 
structed in  the  Reformed  soteriology.  Reviews  of  Anselm  are  so 
common  to  histories  of  doctrine,  systems  of  theology,  and  mono- 
graphic discussions  of  atonement,  that  there  is  little  need  of  special 
reference."  We  question  neither  the  intellectual  strength  nor  the 
intense  religious  earnestness  of  Anselm.  And  both  are  deeply 
wrought  into  his  ''  Cur  Deus  Homo."  That  the  usual  estimate  of 
his  work  greatly  exaggerates  the  scientific  result  we  as  little  ques- 
tion. Such  exaggeration  is  specially  with  his  more  sympathetic 
reviewers. 

Anselm  emphasizes  certain  principles  or  facts  as  fundamental, 
and  makes  them  the  ground  of  his  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment. Sin  is  the  withholding  from  God  his  rightful 
claim,  and  is  to  him,  on  account  of  his  character,  an  infinite 
wrong.  The  sinner  is  thus  brought  into  an  infinite  indebtedness 
to  the  divine  honor.  This  debt  must  be  paid.  God  must  not  and 
cannot  surrender  his  own  personal  right  and  honor,  as  he  would  do 
in  a  mere  gratuitous  forgiveness.  The  sinner  never  can,  by  any 
personal  conduct,  satisfy  this  claim.  Therefore  he  must  suffer  the 
full  punishment  of  his  sins,  or,  as  the  only  alternative,  satisfaction 
must  be  rendered  by  another.     It  follows  that  the  only  salvation  is 

'  Cur  Deus  Homo.     Translated  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vols,  xl,  xii. 

*  Ritschl :  History  of  the  Christian  Doctrine  of  Justification  and  Reconcilia- 
tion, pp.  22-35  ;  Hagenbach  :  History  of  Doctrines,  vol.  ii,  pp.  32-38  ;  Smeaton: 
The  Apostles^  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  pp.  510-520  ;  Oxenham  :  The  Catholic 
Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  pp.  166-174. 


108  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

through  the  compensatory  service  of  a  divine  Mediator.  In  this 
exigency  the  Son  of  God,  in  compassion  for  perishing  sinners,  was 
incarnated  in  their  nature,  and  in  their  behalf  gave  himself  up  in 
holy  obedience  and  suffering  to  the  Father.  On  account  of  his 
tluantliropic  character  his  obedience  and  death  are  a  full  compen- 
sation to  the  violated  honor  of  God,  and,  therefore,  a  true  and 
sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness.' 

But  neither  essential   element   of    the   satisfaction  atonement, 

especially  as  scientifically  wrought  into  this  doctrine,  is  distinctly 

given  by  Anselm.     By  common  consent  the  substitutive 

NO  IMPUTED  O  ■^  .  *'  ^         .         .  .        ,    .        , 

RIGHTEOUS-  office  of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  is  not  m  his  doc- 
NEss.  trine.     This  view  was  first  opened  by  Thomas  Aquinas, 

but  long  waited  for  its  completion."  Nor  did  Anselm  maintain  the 
NO  PENAL  distinct  view  of  penal  substitution.  He  is  so  credited^ 
SUBSTITUTION.  ^(^^^^  q^^  ^s  Interpreted  after  the  ideas  so  fully  wrought 
into  the  Reformed  soteriology.  Certain  avowed  principles  respect- 
ing the  nature  of  sin  and  the  necessity  for  divine  satisfaction,  in 
case  of  forgiveness,  might  imply  a  penal  substitution,  and  do  so 
imply  in  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction — a  fact  which  gives  occasion 
and  currency  to  such  interpretation  of  Anselm.  But  he  never 
gave  them  such  a  meaning,  nor  found  in  penal  substitution  their 
necessary  implication.  He  does  assert  that  punishment  or  satisfac- 
tion must  follow  every  sin:  '^  Necesse  est  ut  omne  peccatum  satU- 
f actio  aut  pmna  sequatur."^  Here,  however,  punishment  and 
satisfaction  are  discriminated  and  taken  as  alternately  necessary, 
while  in  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  the  punishment  of  sin  has  no 
alternative.  It  is  the  only  possible  satisfaction  of  justice,  and  the 
two  terms  are  really  one  in  meaning,  the  ministry  of  justice  vary- 
ing only  by  an  exchange  of  penal  subjects,  not  in  the  execution  of 
penalty.  Anselm  propounded  no  such  doctrine  of  satisfaction  by 
penal  substitution.  Nor  are  we  without  the  support  of  good  au- 
thority in  so  writing.* 

Anselm  represents  the  mediation  of  Christ  in  holy  obedience  and 
suffering  as  infinitely  meritorious,  and,  therefore,  as  justly  entitled 
to  an  infinitely  great  reward.  But  as  an  absolutely  perfect  being, 
and  in  possession  of  all  blessedness,  he  was  not  himself  properly 
reward  able:  therefore  the  merited  reward  might,  and  on  his  prefer- 

'  Neander  :  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  iv,  pp.  498,  499 ;  Knapp :  Christian 
Theology,  p.  403. 

'  Shedd  :  History  of  Christian,  Doctrine,  vol.  ii,  pp.  309,  310. 

2  Opera  Omnia  (Migne's),  Tomus  Primus,  381. 

*  Neander :  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  iv,  p.  500  ;  Bruce :  The  Humiliation 
of  Christ,  p.  358  ;  Oxenham  :  The  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  p.  172. 


THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT.  100 

ence  should,  go  to  sinners  in  forgiveness  and  salvation.'  But  the 
doctrine,  in  its  principles  and  structure,  is  very  different  from  the 
doctrine  of  satisfaction,  and  in  some  of  its  facts  really  very  like 
the  middle  theory. 

3.  Popular  Number  of  Theories. — Historically,  or  in  popular 
enumeration,  theories  of  atonement  are  many.  Nor  is  this  strange. 
The  subject  is  one  of  the  profoundest.  The  facts  reasons  fok 
which  it  concerns  are  of  stupendous  character.  Its  '^^^'^'• 
relations  to  the  great  questions  of  theology  are  vitally  intimate.  In 
scientific  treatment  it  should  be  accordant  to  the  system  of  doc- 
trines into  which  it  is  wrought.  Further,  some  minds  are  given 
to  speculation  and  to  fanciful  views,  or,  for  a  lack  of  proper  analysis 
and  construction,  take  some  one  fact — perhaps  a  merely  incidental 
one — for  the  whole  truth,  while  others  would  timidly  avoid  the 
deeper  principles  of  the  question.  In  such  facts  we  have  reason 
enough  for  many  theories.     Yet  authors  widely  differ  xumbkrs 

respecting  the  number.     Dr.   Hodge  enumerates  five,  uivex. 

but  omits  material  modifications,  while  yet  bringing  them  fully 
into  his  discussion.^  Professor  Crawford  names  thirteen  theories 
as  substitutes  for  what  he  chooses  to  call  the  Catholic  doctrine — • 
the  Calvinistic  doctrine.  Then  he  adds  the  later  theory  of  Dr. 
Bushnell,  thus  giving  us  in  all  fifteen.'  Alford  Cave  names  as 
many.''  Such  large  enumeration,  however,  is  superficial,  and  made 
with  little  regard  to  analysis  and  scientific  classification. 

■i.  Scientific  Enumeration. — The  truth  to  be  interpreted  in  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  is  the  work  of  Christ  in  our  salvation.  But 
he  can  save  us  only  by  some  work  or  influence  within  us,  or  with 
God  for  us,  or  by  both.  Such  work  or  influence,  whatever  it  is, 
must  answer  to  the  need  in  the  case.  Some  need  there  must  be, 
else  a  redemptive  mediation  has  neither  place  nor  office.  Many 
who  deny  an  absolute  need  will  yet  admit  a  relative  one,  and  so 
urgent  as  to  give  propriety  and  value  to  a  redemptive  economy. 

Two  facts  vitally  concern  the  question  of  need,  respecting  which 
there  should  be  a  common  agreement:  one,  that  we  are  testing  prin- 
sinful  and  of  sinful  tendency;  the  other,  that  we  can  (^ip'es- 
be  saved  only  in  a  deliverance  from  sin  and  a  moral  harmonization 
with  God.  Without  such  facts  there  is  no  place  for  the  redemptive 
work  of  Christ,  and  no  saving  office  which  he  can  fulfill.  What, 
then,  is   the  need  for  the  redemptive  mediation  of   Christ  in  a 

'  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  xii,  pp.  80-83. 

°  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  563-589. 

'  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  pp.  285-395. 

*  The  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  pp.  14-16. 


110  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

salvation  so  realized  ?  Why  cannot  man  achieve  his  own  deliverance 
from  sin  and  harmonize  himself  with  God?  Why  cannot  God 
achieve  both  without  a  mediation  in  Christ?  Every  theory  of 
atonement  that  may  properly  be  called  such  must  answer  to  these 
questions.  Every  theory  must,  in  logical  consistency,  accord  with 
the  answer  given.  The  true  theory  will  be  found  in  accord  with 
the  true  answer.  We  thus  have  principles  whereby  we  may  test 
theories,  and  determine  their  legitimacy  or  truth.  Some  give  a 
determining  position  to  one  fact  in  the  need,  some  to  another. 
Some  find  all  the  need  in  the  moral  disabilities  of  man;  others  find 
all  in  God.  Every  theory  must  take  its  place  in  a  scientific  classi- 
fication according  to  the  dominant  fact  of  need  which  it  alleges. 

By  these  same  principles  we  may  greatly  reduce  the  popular  num- 
MANY  THE  ^®^  ^^  theories — such  as  given  by  Professor  Crawford. 
OKIES  ONE  Such  reduction  is  specially  possible  respecting  theories 
THEORY.  wholly  grounded  in  certain    disabilities  of  our  moral 

state.  The  subjective  facts  of  moral  disability,  out  of  which  the 
need  for  a  redemptive  mediation  is  alleged  to  arise,  may  be  numer- 
ically many,  and  yet  so  one  in  kind  that  one  objective  law  of  re- 
demptive help  will  answer  for  all.  And  the  law  of  redemptive  help, 
though  revealed  in  many  facts,  may  still  be  one  law,  and  working 
only  in  one  mode.  Hence,  theories  of  atonement  popularly  num- 
bered after  such  many  facts,  may  all  be  reduced  to  unity  under  one 
form  of  moral  need,  or  under  one  law  of  redemptive  help.  In  a 
like  mode  there  may  be  a  reduction,  though  not  an  equal  one,  of 
theories  which  ground  the  necessity  for  an  atonement  in  the  re- 
quirements of  the  divine  nature.  In  truth,  the  real  necessity  for 
an  atonement  arises  in  the  nature  of  God,  especially  in  the  offices 
of  his  justice,  and  gives  place  for  only  two  legitimate  theories — 
two  alternatively,  one  of  which  must  be  the  true  theory. 

For  illustration  we  may  apply  these  principles  of  classification 
iLLusTRA-  and  reduction  to  theories,  popularly  given  as  such, 
TioNs.  which  are  grounded  simply  in  a  need  arising  out  of 

moral  disabilities  in  man.  The  theories  which  we  shall  name  in 
the  illustration  are  in  fact  but  different  phases  of  the  theory  of 
moral  influence. 

One  theory  is  that  Christ  died  as  a  martyr  to  his  prophetic  mis- 
sion, and  for  the  confirmation  of  the  lessons  of  moral  and  religious 
truth  which  he  gave  to  the  world.  This  is  the  Marturial  theory. 
It  assumes  our  ignorance  and  our  need  of  higher  spiritual  truth, 
and  offers  us  redemptive  help  in  Christ  only  through  the  moral 
influence  of  the  lessons  of  higher  religious  truth  which  he  gave. 

In  another  view,  the  death  of  Christ  fulfilled  its  chief  office  as 


THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT.  Ill 

eubservient  to  liis  resurrection,  that  he  might  thereby  more  fully 
disclose  and  verify  the  reality  of  a  future  life.  Such  disclosure  is 
for  the  sake  of  its  helpful  religious  influence  in  the  present  life. 
Men  are  strongly  prepense  to  a  mere  secular  life.  They  greatly  need, 
therefore,  the  practical  influence  of  a  revealed  future  life.  Such 
help  Christ  brings  through  his  resurrection,  for  which  his  death 
served  as  the  prerequisite. 

He  died  as  an  example  of  self-sacrificing  devotion  to  the  good  of 
others.  He  so  died  that  through  the  moral  force  of  so  impressive 
a  lesson  we  might  be  led  into  a  life  of  disinterested  benevolence. 
Man  is  selfish  and  needs  such  an  example  of  self-sacrificing  devo- 
tion to  the  good  of  others  as  Christ  gives.  Such  are  the  facts 
which  this  view  emphasizes.  But  all  the  redemptive  help  which  it 
represents  is  in  the  practical  force  of  a  moral  lesson. 

In  another  view  the  mission  and  work  of  Christ  were  for  the 
manifestation  of  God  as  among  men  in  an  incarnation  ;  that  he 
•  might  *'  show  us  the  Father  "  in  his  sympathy  and  forgiving  grace. 
Man  lacks  faith,  is  in  doubt,  is  in  a  servile  fear  of  God,  and  suffers 
the  moral  paralysis  of  such  states  of  mind.  He  needs  encourage- 
ment, assurajice  of  the  kindness  and  love  of  God.  This  also  is 
redemptive  help  only  through  the  salutary  influence  of  a  moral 
lesson. 

Such,  indeed,  are  all  the  popularly  named  theories  which 
ground  the  need  of  a  mediatorial  economy  merely  in  ^ked  onk, 
our  own  moral  disabilities.  If  any  exception  should  be  "^^-^  o-"^- 
made  it  is  in  the  case  of  the  realistic  and  mystical  schemes,  in 
Avhich,  however,  the  chief  difference  is  in  the  mode  of  redemptive 
lielp.  But  in  all  that  class  of  which  we  have  given  examples,  the 
need,  revealed  in  many  variant  facts,  is  yet  one  ;  and  the  redemptive 
help,  coming  in  various  forms,  is  operative  only  in  one  mode.  Man 
is  ignorant,  and  needs  higher  religious  truth  ;  of  feeble  motivity  to 
duty,  and  needs  its  lessons  in  a  more  impressive  form  ;  of  strong 
secular  tendency',  and  needs  the  practical  force  of  a  revealed  future 
life  ;  selfish,  and  needs  the  helpful  example  of  self-sacrificing  love  ; 
in  a  servile  fear  of  God,  and  needs  the  assurance  of  his  fatherly 
kindness.  So  Christ  comes  in  all  these  forms  of  needed  help.  But 
in  the  deeper  sense,  the  need  is  one,  and  the  redemptive  help  is  one. 
And  these  theories,  many  in  popular  enumeration,  are  all  one  theory 
— the  theory  of  moral  influence.  Its  claims  will  be  considered  a  little 
further  on.  For  the  present  it  may  be  said  that  no  issue  will  be 
joined  respecting  either  such  need  in  us  or  such  help  in  Christ  as 
here  alleged.  But  such  is  not  the  real  necessity  for  an  atonement, 
and  such  is  not  the  true  atonement. 


112  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

5.  Ground  for  only  Two  Theories. — In  a  stricter  scientific  sense 
there  are  but  two  theories  of  atonement.  We  have  seen  how  many 
in  popular  enumeration  are  reducible  to  the  one  theory  of  moral 
influence.  Others,  as  will  appear,  in  their  review,  are  so  void  of 
essential  facts  that  they  hold  no  rightful  place  as  theories.  Nor  is 
the  scheme  of  moral  influence  in  any  strict  sense  a  theory  of  atone- 
ment, because  it  neither  answers  to  the  real  necessity  in  the  case 
nor  admits  an  objective  ground  of  forgiveness  in  the  mediation  of 
Christ. 

Nor  can  there  be  more  than  two  theories.  This  limitation  is  de- 
ONLY  TWO  termined  by  the  law  of  a  necessary  accordance  between 
THEORIES.  ^]je  necessity  for  an  atonement  and  the  nature  of  the 
atonement  as  answering  to  that  necessity.  This  fact  we  have,  that 
the  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ  are  an  objective  ground  of  the 
divine  forgiveness.  There  is  a  necessity  for  such  a  ground  ;  his 
sufferings  are  an  atonement  only  as  they  answer  to  this  necessity. 
Hence  the  nature  of  the  atonement  is  determined  by  the  nature  of 
its  necessity.  Now  this  necessity  must  lie  either  in  the  requirement 
of  an  absolute  justice  which  must  punish  sin,  or  in  the  rectoral  office 
of  justice  as  an  obligation  to  conserve  the  interest  of  moral  govern- 
ment. There  can  be  no  other  necessity  for  an  atonement  as  an  object- 
ive ground  of  forgiveness.  Nor  does  any  scheme  of  a  real  atonement 
in  Christ  either  represent  or  imply  another.  Thus  there  is  place  for 
two  theories,  but  only  two.  There  is  place  for  a  theory  of  absolute 
substitution,  according  to  which  the  redemptive  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  strictly  penal,  and  the  fulfillment  of  an  absolute  obligation  of 
justice  in  the  punishment  of  sin.  This  is  the  theory  of  satisfaction, 
and  answers  to  a  necessity  in  the  first  sense  given.  There  is  also 
place  for  a  theory  of  conditional  substitution,  according  to  which 
the  redemptive  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  the  punishment  of  sin, 
but  such  a  substitute  for  the  rectoral  office  of  penalty  as  renders 
forgiveness,  on  proper  conditions,  consistent  with  the  requirements 
of  moral  government.  This  answers  to  a  necessity  in  the  second 
sense  given,  and  accords  with  th:  deeper  principles  of  the  govern- 
mental theory.  The  truth  of  atonement  must  be  with  the  one  or 
the  other  of  these  theories. 

II.  Summary  Reviews. 
Most  of  the  theories  noticed  in  this  section  we  call  theories  only 
after  popular  usage.  They  are  not  strictly  such.  While  some 
have  peculiar  phases  or  elements,  they  are  mostly  based  on  the 
principles  of  the  moral  theory.  We  shall  attempt  but  a  summary 
review  of  them.     It  will  suffice  to  notice  their  leading  facts,  to 


THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT.  113 

ascertain  the  nature  of  the  redemption  in  Christ  which  they  repre- 
sent, and  to  determine  their  place  in  a  proper  classification.  A  few 
words  may  be  added  upon  their  respective  claims. 

1.  Theory  of  Vicarious  Repentance. — We  may  so  designate  a 
theory  specially  represented  by  Dr.  John  McLeod  Campbell.  It 
is  grounded  in  the  idea  of  the  profoundest  identification  of  Christ 
vv'ith  humanity  in  the  incarnation.  Therein  he  takes  our  experi- 
ences into  his  own  consciousness  ;  enters  into  the  deepest  sympathy 
with  us,  even  in  our  sense  of  sin,  and  of  the  divine  displeasure. 
Thus  he  takes  upon  his  own  soul  the  burden  and  sorrow  of  our  sins, 
and  makes  the  truest,  deepest  confession  of  their  demerit  and  of  the 
just  displeasure  of  God  against  them.  Divine  justice  is  therewith 
satisfied  and  we  are  forgiven.  "  This  confession,  as  to  its  own  nature, 
must  have  been  a  perfect  Amen  in  Immunity  to  the  judgment  of 
God  on  the  sin  of  man."  ''  He  who  so  responds  to  the  divine  wrath 
against  sin,  saying,  '  Thou  art  righteous,  0  Lord,  who  judgest  so,' 
is  necessarily  receiving  the  full  apprehension  and  realization  of 
that  wrath,  as  well  as  of  that  sin  against  which  it  comes  into  his 
soul  and  spirit,  into  the  bosom  of  the  divine  humanity,  and,  so 
receiving  it,  he  responds  to  it  with  z  perfect  response — a  response 
from  the  depths  of  that  divine  humanity — and  in  that  perfect  re- 
sjwnse  he  absorbs  if.  For  that  response  has  all  the  elements  of  a 
perfect  repentance  in  humanity  for  all  the  sin  of  man  ;  a  perfect 
sorrow  ;  a  perfect  contrition  ;  all  the  elements  of  such  a  repentance, 
and  that  in  absolute  perfection ;  all,  except  the  personal  consciousness 
of  sin ;  and  by  that  perfect  response  in  Amen  to  the  mind  of  God  in 
relation  to  sin  is  the  wrath  of  God  rightly  met,  and  that  is  accorded 
to  divine  justice  which  is  its  due  and  could  alone  satisfy  it."^ 

This  scheme  recognizes  the  demerit  of  sin  and  a  retributive  jus- 
tice in  God.  It  is  a  scheme  of  vicarious  atonement,  demerit  op 
but  in  entire  dissent  from  the  theory  of  satisfaction,  as  ^'^• 
it  denies  the  possibility  of  penal  substitution.  It  clearly  holds 
repentance  to  be  all  that  justice  requires  as  the  ground  of  forgive- 
ness. In  this  it  dissents  from  both  the  Anselmic  and  Grotian 
theories,  and  identifies  itself  with  the  Socinian.  It  admits  no 
necessity  for  an  objective  atonement,  either  in  an  absolute  penal 
justice  or  in  the  interest  of  moral  government.  Any  necessity  for 
redemptive  help  which  the  scheme  may  consistently  allow  must  be 
grounded  in  an  inability  in  us  to  a  true  repentance.  If  a  vicarious  re- 
pentance is  sufficient  for  our  forgiveness,  so  must  be  a  true  repent- 
ance in  us.    This  fact  also  classes  the  scheme  with  the  moral  theory. 

This  special  view  is  open  to  many  objections.     The  Scriptures 

'  Campbell:  The  Nature  of  the  Atonement,  pp.  118,  119. 


114  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

give  it  no  support.      It  will  not  interpret  the  explicit  terms  of 
atonement,  nor  answer  to  the  real  necessity  for  one.    Nor 

OBJECTIONS 

is  there  less  difficulty  in  the  notion  of  a  vicarious  re- 
pentance than  in  that  of  vicarious  punishment.  Then  the  logical 
sequence  of  such  a  vicarious  repentance,  with  its  attributed  effects, 
is  the  releasement  of  all  from  the  requirement  of  repentance,  and 
the  unconditional  forgiveness  of  all.' 

2.  TJieory  of  Redemption  by  Love. — It  is  according  to  the  Script- 
ures that  our  redemption  has  its  original  in  the  love  of  God.  But 
this  fact  does  not  determine  the  nature  of  such  redemption,  or 
whether  it  be  an  objective  ground  of  forgiveness  originating  in  the 
divine  love,  or  merely  the  moral  influence  of  its  manifestation  in 
Christ,  operative  as  a  subduing  and  reconciling  power  in  the  soul. 
Dr.  Young  is  a  special  exponent  of  the  latter  view.  There  is  really 
very  little  in  the  theory  peculiar  to  himself.  This  is  specially  true 
of  its  constituent  facts.  Any  peculiarity  lies  rather  in  their  com- 
bination and  in  the  manner  of  their  expression.  The  author  writes 
with  perspicuity  and  force.  His  principles  are  clearly  given.  It 
is  easy  to  determine  and  classify  his  theory. 

Certain  facts  are  postulated  respecting  spiritual  laws.  Death  is 
SPIRITUAL  the  necessary  consequence  of  sin,  as  life  is  of  holiness. 
LAWS.  The  only  salvation,  therefore,  is  in  the  destruction  of 

sin  as  a  subjective  fact.  This  is  the  work  of  the  redemption  in 
Christ.  "The  laws  of  nature  are  owing  solely  to  the  will  and  fiat 
of  the  Creator.  He  ordained  them,  and  had  such  been  his  pleasure 
they  might  have  been  altered  in  ten  thousand  ways.  But  the  laws 
of  the  spiritual  universe  do  not  depend  even  on  the  highest  will. 
The  great  God  did  not  make  them;  they  are  eternal  as  he  is.  The 
great  God  cannot  repeal  them;  they  are  immutable  as  he  is." 
"  Without  aid  from  any  quarter  they  avenge  themselves,  and  exact, 
and  continue  without  fail  to  exact,  so  long  as  the  evil  remains,  the 
amount  of  penalty — visible  and  invisible — to  the  veriest  jot  and 
tittle  which  the  deed  of  violation  deserves."  "No  term  of  punish- 
ment is  fixed,  none  can  be  fixed.  One  thing,  and  one  thing  only, 
determines  the  duration  of  the  punishment,  and  that  is  the  con- 
tinuance of  evil  in  the  soul.  The  evil  continuing,  its  attendant 
penalty  is  a  necessity,  which  even  God  could  not  conquer."  "  There 
is  one,  but  there  is  only  one,  way  in  which  the  tremendous  doom 
of  the  sinful  soul  can  be  escaped  in  consistency  with  the  great  lav.^s 
of  the  spiritual  universe.  If  sin  were  cast  out  the  death  which 
issues  solely  from  sin  would  be  effectually  prevented.'''  ^ 

'  Cave  :  The  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  pp.  350-362. 
-  Young  :  The  Life  and  Light  of  Men,  pp.  83,  85,  93,  97. 


rilKOJMKS  OF  ATONEMENT.  115 

Tlie  theory  of  redemption  is  from  facts  so  stated.  There  is  uo 
need  of  an  objective  ground  of  forgiveness.  The  whole 
need  is  for  a  moral  force  working  in  the  soul  itself,  and 
in  a  manner  to  destroy  the  power  of  subjective  evil.  All  this  is 
provided  for  in  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  love  in  the  sacrifice 
of  the  cross.  Such  is  God's  method  of  redemption.  "  By  the  one 
true  sacrifice  of  Christ,  an  act  of  divine  self-sacrifice  by  incarnate, 
crucified  love,  he  aims  a  blow  at  the  root  of  evil  within  man's  heart. 
...  He  breaks  the  hard  heart  by  the  overwhelming  pressure  of 
pure,  almighty  mercy,  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  ' 

AVe  specially  object  to  the  one-sided  redemption  so  constructed. 
We  fully  accept  the  postulates  respecting  spiritual  laws 
as  involving  an  absolute  distinction  between  holiness 
and  sin;  though  we  do  not  admit  the  extreme  view  of  their  self- 
execution,  which  might  dispense  with  a  moral  government  as  under 
an  actual  divine  administration.  God  ever  rules  in  the  moral 
realm,  and  dispenses  rewards  to  both  holiness  and  sin.  The  neces- 
sity of  a  deliverance  from  sin  as  a  subjective  evil  in  order  to  salva- 
tion we  have  already  affirmed.  Indeed,  it  is  a  very  familiar  truth. 
And  that  the  divine  love  revealed  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  has  a 
great  office  in  our  moral  reformation  is  also  a  very  familiar  truth. 
It  ever  finds  utterance  in  Christian  exhortation  and  entreaty  to  a 
new  spiritual  life.  And  it  is  an  affected  or  mistaken  originality 
when  men  give  prominence  to  such  truths  as  original  discoveries. 

In  principle  the  scheme  is  one  with  that  of  moral  influence. 
The  atonement  is  all  in  a  power  of  moral  motive  as  the  moral 
embodied  in  manifested  love,  and  operative  only  through  theory. 
the  soul's  own  cognition  and  motivity.  Like  every  such  theory,  it 
utterly  fails  to  answer  to  the  real  need  of  an  atonement  as  revealed 
in  the  Scriptures  and  manifest  in  the  reason  of  the  case.  It  has 
no  fair  interpretation  for  the  many  Scripture  texts  which  so  directly 
attribute  forgiveness  to  the  redemption  in  the  blood  of  Christ;  nor 
does  it  give  any  proper  recognition  to  the  mission  of  the  Spirit 
through  his  mediation  as  the  efficient  agency  in  our  subjective 
redemption  from  sin. 

3.  Tfieory  of  Self -propitiation  ly  Self-sacrifice. — We  may  so  for- 
mulate the  later  theory  of  Dr.  Bushnell.  In  his  own  account  it  sup- 
plements rather  than  supersedes  his  former  theory:  "  The  argument 
of  my  former  treatise^  was  concerned  in  exhibiting  the  work  of 
Christ  as  a  reconciling  power  in  men.  This  was  conceived  to  be 
the  whole  import  and  effect  of  it.  ...  I  now  propose  to  substitute 
for  the  latter  half  of  my  former  treatise  a  different  exposition; 

'  Young  :   The  Life  and  Light  of  Men,  p.  98.  '  The  Vicarious  Sacrifice. 


116  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

composing  thus  a  whole  of  doctrine  that  comprises  both  the  recon- 
ciliation of  men  to  God  and  of  God  to  men."  '  He  still  holds  the 
position  that  the  main  office  of  atonement  is  in  its  moral  influence 
with  men.  Now,  however,  he  finds  an  element  in  the  divine  pro- 
pitiation; but  it  is  not  one  that  identifies  his  theory  with  either  the 
Anselmic  or  Grotian  atonement. 

The  new  theory  alleges  a  similarity  of  moral  sentiment  in  God 
THE  BAR  TO  ^nd  men;  and  then,  from  an  alleged  requisite  to  a 
FORGIVENESS,  thorough  humau  forgiveness,  deduces  a  law  of  the 
divine  forgiveness.  We  have  retributive  sentiments,  disgust,  and 
resentment  against  the  turpitude  and  wrong  of  sin.  It  is  admitted 
that  these  feelings  have  an  important  function  in  moral  discipline, 
and  that  they  must  be  treated  in  subservience  to  that  end.  "  Fill- 
ing an  office  so  important,  they  must  not  be  extirpated  under  any 
pretext  of  forgiveness.  They  require  to  be  somehow  mastered,  and 
somehow  to  remain.  And  the  supreme  art  of  forgiveness  will  con- 
sist in  finding  how  to  embrace  the  unworthy  as  if  they  were  not 
unworthy,  or  how  to  have  them  still  on  hand  when  they  will  not 
suffer  the  forgiveness  to  pass.  Which  supreme  art  is  the  way  of 
propitiation — always  concerned  in  the  reconciliation  of  moral  nat- 
ures separated  by  injuries." " 

What,  then,  is  the  mode  of  this  supreme  art  of  reconciliation? 
ART  OF  REcoN-  What  Is  tlic  csscutial  requisite  to  its  realization  in  a  free 
ciuATioN.  g^^(j  f^^u  forgiveness?  The  requirement  is  from  the  nat- 
ure of  the  hinderance  to  the  forgiveness  in  our  moral  resentments 
against  sin;  and  hence  for  some  measure  of  self -propitiation  which 
shall  master  these  resentments,  and  issue  in  a  thorough  forgiveness. 
How,  then,  may  this  self -propitiation  be  realized?  By  some  man- 
ner of  self-sacrifice  for  the  good  of  those  against  whom  we  have 
such  resentments.  "  Suffering,  in  short,  is  with  all  moral  natures 
the  necessary  correlate  of  forgiveness.  The  man,  that  is,  cannot 
say,  *  I  forgive,'  and  have  the  saying  end  it;  he  must  somehow  atone 
both  himself  and  his  enemy  by  a  painstaking,  rightly  so  called, 
that  has  power  to  recast  the  terms  of  their  relationship."  '  Such  is 
the  requisite  to  forgiveness;  some  personal  sacrifice  for  the  good 
of  the  offender,  and  not  only  as  a  power  of  moral  infiuence  with 
him,  but  also  as  a  necessary  self -propitiation  toward  him  in  the  party 
offended.     Such  is  the  law  of  human  forgiveness. 

Then  this  same  law  is  applied  to  the  divine  forgiveness.     It  is  so 

SAME  LAW  FOR  appHcd  ou  thc  ground  of  a  "  grand  analogy,  or  almost 

GOD.  identity,  that  subsists  between  our   moral  nature  and 

that  of  God  ;  so  that  our  pathologies  and  those  of  God  make  faith- 

'  Forgiveness  and  Law,  p.  33.  '•*  Ibid.  p.  38.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  48,  49. 


THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT.  117 

I'ul  imsAver  to  each  other,  aud  he  is  brought  so  close  to  us  that 
almost  any  thing  that  occurs  in  the  workings  or  exigencies  of  our 
moral  instincts  may  even  be  expected  in  his."'  It  is  hence  con- 
cluded that  God  has  such  hinderance  to  forgiveness  in  his  moral 
resentments  against  sin  as  we  have,  and  therefore  requires  the  same 
means  of  self-propitiation.  He  forgives  just  as  we  do.  "  One  kind 
of  forgiveness  matches  and  interprets  the  other,  for  they  have  a 
common  property.  They  come  to  the  same  point  when  they  are 
genuine,  and  require  also  exactly  the  same  preparations  and  con- 
ditions precedent.'"^  So  God  must  propitiate  himself  in  cost  and 
suffering  for  our  good.  This  he  did  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross : 
"  that  sublime  act  of  cost,  in  which  God  has  bent  himself  down- 
ward, in  loss  and  sorrow,  over  the  hard  face  of  sin,  to  say,  and  say- 
ing to  make  good,  *  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee.'" ^ 

Many  of  these  facts  might  be  admitted  without  accepting  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  thereon  constructed.  The  retrib-  thk  law  not 
utive  sentiment  is  with  us  an  original  fact,  and  in  its  l-^'^'ok'^'- 
own  nature  a  hinderance  to  forgiveness.  There  are  resentments 
against  injury  and  wrong  which  may  strengthen  the  hinderance. 
But  this  law  is  without  uniformity.  The  retributive  feeling  rarely 
exists  alone.  It  is  usually  in  association  with  other  feelings  which 
may  either  greatly  hinder  or  greatly  help  any  disposition  i)  forgive- 
ness. In  a  cruel,  hard  nature  the  associated  feelings  may  co-operate 
with  the  retributive  sentiment  to  prevent  all  disposition  to  forgive- 
ness, and  equally  to  prevent  all  acts  of  personal  kindness  which 
might  placate  the  vindictive  resentment  ;  while  the  tendencies  of  a 
generous,  kindly  nature  may  be  helpful  to  a  forgiving  disposition. 
There  are  gracious,  loving  natures  ever  ready  with  a  full  forgiveness, 
without  any  self-atonement  in  charities  to  the  offender.  The  more 
is  this  true  as  the  soul  is  the  more  deeply  imbued  with  the  divine  love. 

Now  the  multiformity  and  contrariety  of  such  facts  in  men  deny 
to  Dr.  Bushnell  the  analogy  from  which  he  concludes  the  necessary 
means  of  the  divine  propitiation  and  forgiveness.  Self-propitiation 
in  a  sacrificing  charity  to  the  offender  is  not  "  with  all  moral  natures 
the  necessary  correlate  of  forgiveness."  And  with  error  in  the  prem- 
ise the  conclusion  is  fallacious.  But  were  it  even  true  that  this 
is  the  only  law  of  forgiveness  with  men  it  would  not  hence  follow 
that  such  is  the  only  law  of  forgiveness  with  God. 

It  should  be  distinctly  noted  that  here  we  have  no  concern  with 
any  requirement  of  divine  justice  as  maintained  either  mistakes  the 
in  the  satisfaction  theory  or  in  the  rectoral.     Dr.  Bush-  '"''^*^''- 
nell  rejects  both,  with  all  that  is  vital  in  them.     Xor  does  he  admit 
'  Forgiveness  and  Lou-,  p.  35.  '^  JbicL,  p.  35.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  73. 

io  ' 


118  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

any  necessity  for  an  atonement  on  the  ground  of  either.  In  his 
scheme  the  necessity  lies  in  a  personal  disposition  of  God  as  a  re- 
sentment against  the  injury  and  wrong  of  sin.  It  is  not  in  the  inter- 
est of  our  criticism  to  deny  all  hinderance  in  the  divine  resentment 
against  sin  to  a  propitious  disposition  ;  but  we  confidently  affirm 
such  a  transcendent  love  in  God  as  would,  in  the  absence  of  all  other 
hinderance,  wait  for  no  placation  of  his  personal  wrath  in  self-sac- 
rifice, but  instantly  go  forth  to  the  satisfaction  of  its  yearnings  in 
the  freest,  fullest  forgiveness.  If  men  imbued  with  the  divine  love 
will  so  forgive,  much  more  would  the  infinite  love.  The  position 
has  the  highest  a  fortiori  proof.  That  divine  love  which  finds  its 
way  to  forgiveness  through  the  blood  of  the  cross  could  suffer  no 
delay  by  any  personal  resentment  against  sin  requiring  placation  in 
costly  ministries  to  the  offender.  The  grace  of  redemption  in  the 
blood  of  Christ  is  infinitely  greater  than  the  grace  of  forgiveness. 
Hence  the  free  gift  of  the  former  in  the  very  state  of  personal  resent- 
ment alleged  denies  the  assumed  hinderance  therein  to  the  fi-eest. 
fullest  forgiveness. ' 

This  scheme,  therefore,  does  not  answer  to  the  real  necessity  for 
NO  AxswKRTo  ^^^  rcdcmptivc  mediation  of  Christ.  Nor  does  it  rightly 
REAL  NEED.  iutcrprct  the  office  of  his  sacrifice.  The  necessity  con- 
cerns the  profoundest  interest  of  moral  government,  and  hence 
arises  in  the  very  perfections  of  God  as  moral  ruler,  not  in  his  per- 
sonal resentment  against  sin.  And  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  answers 
to  this  necessity  in  atonement  for  sin  by  rendering  forgiveness  con- 
sistent with  the  interest  concerned. 

Such  a  scheme  is  far  deeper  and  grander  than  Dr.  Bushuell's. 
Indeed,  his  is  neither  profound  nor  grand.     It  admits 

SUPERFICIAL.  ••!  •      J.  ^  Ji-       £  •  i.1 

no  principle  or  interest  as  concerned  m  forgiveness,  the 
disregard  of  which  would  be  as  contrary  to  the  divine  goodness  as 
to  the  divine  justice.  In  the  analogy  of  certain  "  pathologies,"  of 
personal  resentment  against  sin,  the  scheme  lowers  God  into  the 
likeness  of  men  ;  so  that  in  him,  as  in  them,  the  great  hinderance 
to  forgiveness  is  in  these  same  personal  resentments.  Thus  "  one 
kind  of  forgiveness  matches  and  interprets  the  other,  for  they 
have  a  common  property.  They  come  to  the  same  point  when 
they  are  genuine,  and  require  also  the  same  preparations  and 
conditions  precedent."  The  theory  commands  no  lofty  view  of 
the  divine  goodness.  Nor  can  it  give  any  proper  significance  to 
the  sacred  proclamation  of  the  divine  love  as  the  original  of  the 
redemptive  economy.  Such  a  love  is  held  in  no  bonds  of  jjersonal 
resentment.  The  theory  has  no  profound  and  glorious  doctrine 
'  Rom.  V,  10  ;  viii,  33. 


THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT.  119 

of  diviue  love  ;  and,  indeed,  is  found  on  a  true  sounding  to  be 
shallow. 

Its  scientific  position  is  easily  given.  As  compared  with  the  moral 
theory  it  has  a  somewhat  differencing  element,  which  carries  the 
atonement  into  the  reconciliation  of  God.  But  this  element  is  in- 
sufficient to  constitute  a  really  distinct  theory.  Negatively,  and 
therefore  fatally,  it  is  one  with  the  moral  theory.  It  denies  all  hin- 
derance  to  forgiveness  in  the  divine  justice,  Avhether  in  its  purely 
retributive  function  or  in  its  rectoral  office.  This  fact  thoroughly 
differentiates  it  from  both  the  satisfaction  and  governmental  theo- 
ries, and  closely  affiliates  it  with  tlie  moral  theory. 

4.  Realistic  Theory. — Closely  kindred  to  this  is  the  mystical  the- 
ory, next  to  be  noticed.  Each  is  multiform,  and  the  two  often 
coalesce.  These  facts,  with  a  lack  of  explicit  and  definite  state- 
ment, render  it  difficult  either  to  apprehend  them  or  to  present 
them  in  a  clear  view. 

In  the  realistic  theory  some  represent  Christ  as  the  typical  or 
ideal  man,  using  these  terms  vaguely,  but  with  the  as-  some  uniov 
sumption  of  some  manner  of  relationship  between  him  ""'ith  christ. 
and  us,  whereby  we  are  the  recipients  of  a  redemptive  influence 
working  for  our  moral  renovation  and  salvation.  Others  carry 
the  conception  of  Christ  into  the  notion  of  a  generic  humanity,  of 
which  we  are  individuated  forms.  The  notion  must  answer  some- 
what to  the  scholastic  realism,  or  to  that  of  the  Augustinian 
anthropology,  which  identifies  the  human  race  in  a  real  oneness 
with  Adam. 

Xor  did  the  incarnation  bring  Christ  into  any  realistic  connection 
with  human  nature  which  is  in  itself  redeeming  and  mistaken 
saving.       It   did  bring   him  into    union   with  human  ^if.w. 

nature,  but  into  a  thoroughly  individual  form — as  much  so  as  that 
of  any  individual  man.  So  far  from  such  a  realistic  identification, 
he  stands  apart  from  all  human  nature,  except  the  one  individual 
form  of  his  incarnation.  Hence  that  incarnation  had  not  in  itself 
the  efficiency  of  redemption,  but  was  in  order  to  an  atonement  in 
tiie  death  of  Christ,  that  he  might  come  to  us  severally  in  the  grace 
of  forgiveness  and  in  the  regenerating  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' 
Such  is  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  atonement  and  salvation,  but 
which  no  realism  represents." 

5.  Mystical  Tlieory. — This  theory,  as  previously  stated,  is,  at 
least  in  some  of  its  facts,  closely  kindred  to  the  realistic.     It  is 

'  Gal.  iv,  4,  5 ;  Heb.  ii,  14,  15. 

*Rigg:  Modem  Anglican  TJieologi/,  pp.  130-140;  Crawford:  T/ie  Scrijiture 
Doctrine  of  Atonement,  pp.  303-D18. 


120  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

chiefly  based  on  the  idea  of  a  real  union  of  Christ  with  the  hu- 
man soul.  In  this  union  is  realized  his  redeeming  and  saving 
efficiency.  So  far  the  theory  finds  salvation  in  a  subjective  sancti- 
fication,  and  makes  little  account  of  justification  in  the  forgiveness 
of  sin.  Hence  it  makes  slight  account  of  an  objective  reconcilia- 
tion in  the  death  of  Christ,  in  comparison  of  his  subjective  work  of 
redemption.  The  weighty  objection  to  this  view  is  that  it  gives  us 
a  one-sided  soteriology.  It  offers  the  benefits  of  an  objective  atone- 
ment without  the  atonement  itself. 

There  is  in  our  salvation  a  living  union  with  Christ.'  This  is  a 
truth  of  all  evangelical  theology.  But  in  the  order  of  nature  for- 
giveness must  precede  this  spiritual  union.  So  the  atonement  in  the 
blood  of  Christ  as  the  only  ground  of  forgiveness  is  a  distinct  fact 
from  his  saving  union  with  us.  Strictly,  the  mystical  scheme  omits 
the  atonement  proper,  and  belongs  to  another  part  of  soteriology." 

6.  Middle  Theory. — The  same  theory  is  also  called  the  Arian — 
not,  however,  as  originating  with  Arius,  but  because 

THF  THEORY 

of  its  association  with  an  Arian  Christology.  It  holds 
that  forgiveness  is  granted  to  repenting  sinners  for  Christ's  sake. 
or  in  view  of  his  mediatorial  service.  This  is  not  a  forgiveness 
on  the  ground  of  his  death  as  a  vicarious  atonement  for  sin. 
but  in  reward  of  his  self-sacrificing  service  in  the  interest  of  the 
human  race.  Higher  ground  is  thus  taken  than  in  the  moral  the- 
ory. The  mediation  of  Christ  has  a  higher  office  than  a  mere  prac- 
tical lesson  :  *'Not  only  to  give  us  an  example;  not  only  to  assure 
us  of  remission,  or  to  procure  our  Lord  a  commission  to  publish  the 
forgiveness  of  sin :  but,  moreover,  to  obtain  that  forgiveness  by 
doing  what  God  in  his  wisdom  and  goodness  judged  fit  and  expedi- 
ent to  be  done  in  order  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin;  and  without  which 
he  did  not  think  it  fit  or  expedient  to  grant  the  forgiveness  of  sin." ' 
Yet,  with  all  these  facts,  the  theory  denies  a  proper  substitutional 

atonement,  and  hence  is  unscriptural.     It   is  in  very 

DEFICIENCV  " 

thorough  dissent  from  the  theory  of  satisfaction.  In 
the  maintenance  of  a  fitness,  or  wise  expediency,  in  the  mediation 
of  Christ  as  the  reason  of  forgiveness,  especially  in  its  relation  to  the 
interest  of  moral  government,  it  makes  some  approach  toward  the 
rectoral  view,  but  in  the  full  exposition  falls  far  short  of  it.  In 
some  features  it  reminds  one  of  the  theory  of  Anselm,  though  the 
two  are  far  from  being  identical. 

'  John  XV,  5,  6  ;  Eom.  viii,  10  ;  Col.  iii,  3,  4. 

"^  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  581-583  ;  Bruce  :  The  Humiliation 
of  Christ,  p.  315. 

^  John  Taylor  :  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  No.  152. 


THE  VIKW. 


THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT.  l.'l 

Dr.  Hill  reviews  the  theory  iu  a  clear  analysis  and  statement,  de- 
riving his  information  of  it  from  Dr.  Thomas  Balguy,  Dr.  Price, 
and  others.'  The  treatment  is  with  the  characteristic  fairness  and 
perspicuity  of  the  author.  After  a  lucid  statement  of  the  theory  he 
notes  its  very  serious  defects,  but  at  the  same  time  regards  it  as  a 
well-wrought  and  beautiful  structure.' 

7.  Theory  of  Conditional  Fenal  Substitution. — We  do  not  here 
appropriate  any  given  formula  of  atonement,  but  use 
terms  which  properly  designate  a  tlieory  held  by  not  a 
few.  The  view  is,  that  the  redemptive  sufferings  of  Christ  were 
penally  endured  in  behalf  of  sinners  ;  that  as  such  they  constitute 
a  proper  ground  of  forgiveness ;  but  that  the  forgiveness  is  really 
conditional.  There  is  present  the  idea  of  a  necessary  retribution  of 
sin,  or  of  a  vicarious  punishment  in  order  to  forgiveness.  If  there 
be  sin,  there  must  also  be  punishment :  this  is  the  idea.  Yet  the 
reason  of  this  necessity,  and  the  relation  of  penal  substitution  to 
forgiveness,  are  not  given  with  any  exactness,  as  in  the  scheme  of 
satisfaction. 

The  penal  substitution  is  conditional,  in  the  sense  that  the  for- 
giveness provided  is  contingent  upon  the  free  action  sense  of  co.\- 
of  sinners  respecting  the  required  terms.  They  are  "itional. 
free  to  repent  and  believe,  and  equally  free  not  to  repent  and  believe. 
In  the  former  case  they  are  free  through  enabling  grace  ;  in  the 
latter,  as  not  subject  to  an  irresistible  power  of  grace.  On  a  proper 
repentance  and  faith  they  are  forgiven  on  the  ground  of  Christ's 
vicarious  punishment ;  but  on  the  refusal  of  such  terms  they  are 
answerable  in  penalty  for  their  sins,  and  none  the  less  so  on  account 
of  his  penal  substitution. 

The  scheme  is  a  construction  apparently  between  the  satisfaction 
and  governmental  theories.  It  rejects  the  absolute  substitution  of 
the  former,  and  adds  the  penal  element  to  the  proper  conditional 
substitution  of  the  latter.  Such,  in  substance,  is  the  theory  of  all 
who  hold  both  the  penal  quality  of  the  redemptive  the  theory 
sufferings  of  Christ  and  a  real  conditionality  of  forgive-  ^^  many. 
ness.  Hence,  we  were  entirely  correct  in  representing  it  as  the  the- 
ory of  not  a  few.  Many  leading  Arminians  may  be  classed  in  such 
a  scheme ;  though  we  think  it  for  them  an  unscientific  position. 
Arminius  himself  maintained  both  penal  substitution  and  a  real  con- 
ditionality of  forgiveness.^  Grotius  held  both,  though  with  far  less 
explicitness  respecting   the  former.     Some  of   Richard    "Watson's 

'  Lectures  in  Divinity,  pp.  422-427. 

-  Buchanan  :  The  Doctrine  of  Justification,  pp.  165-168. 
3  Writings  (Nichols's)  :  vols,  i,  pp.  28,  29  ;  ii,  pp.  496-499. 
10 


122  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Etatements  would  assign  to  him  the  same  position.  It  is  the  theory 
maintained  in  the  more  recent  and  very  able  work  of  Marshall  Ran- 
dies.' 

Is  there  room  for  such  a  theory?  There  is  a  broad  ground  of 
NO  PLACE  FOR  distiuctiou  between  the  satisfaction  and  governmental 
THE  THEORY,  thcorics.  But  such  a  difference  is  not  always  room  for 
another.  Two  theories  may  so  appropriate  all  possible  facts  and 
principles  of  the  question  that  the  truth  in  the  case  must  be  with 
one  or  the  other.  Such  are  the  facts  respecting  these  two  theories 
of  atonement.  Nor  can  a  penal  substitution  be  conditional.  Pen- 
alty, as  an  instrument  of  justice,  has  only  two  offices  :  one  in  the 
punishment  of  sin  as  such,  the  other,  in  the  interest  of  the  govern- 
ment. And  though  punishment  is  only  for  the  sake  of  its  rectoi'al 
end,  it  is  none  the  less  strictly  retributive,  or  inflicted  only  on  the 
ground  of  demerit.  There  is  no  other  just  punishment.  Nor  could 
any  other  fulfill  its  rectoral  office.  Then,  if  the  punishment  be  in- 
flicted upon  a  substitute,  the  substitution  must,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  be  real  and  absolute.  Justice  can  have  no  further  retributive 
claim  against  the  sinners  so  substituted  ;  not  any  more  than  if  they 
had  suffered  in  themselves  the  full  punishment  of  their  sins.  Here 
the  consistency  of  the  case  is  with  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction.  All 
so  replaced  by  a  substitute  in  punishment  must  be  discharged  from 
personal  amenability  to  penalty.  Hence  a  real  conditionality  of 
forgiveness  has  no  consistency  with  penal  substitution. 

We  are  fully  aware  that  rigid  satisfactionists  assert  the  condition- 
ality of  forgiveness.     This,  however,  does  not  void  the 

CONSISTENCY  .         \        .        .      °  .  . 

WITH  SATIS-  intrinsic  inconsistency  in  the  case.  Nor  is  what  they 
FACTioNisTs.  asscrt  a  real  conditionality ;  certainly  not  such  as 
Arminianism  ever  maintains.  For  instance,  faith  is  with  them 
the  condition  of  forgiveness  ;  but  they  really  deny  the  contingency 
of  faith.  In  their  scheme,  it  is  conditional  only  as  precedent  to 
forgiveness  in  a  necessary  order  of  facts  in  the  process  of  salva- 
tion. It  takes  its  place  as  a  jjurchased  benefit  of  redemption  in 
the  process  of  salvation  monergistically  wrought.  Irresistible  grace 
is  efficient  cause  to  the  faith,  as  to  every  other  fact  in  the  actual 
salvation.  Christ  would  be  wronged  of  his  purchase  were  it  not  so 
wrought  in  every  redeemed  soul.  Here,  indeed,  is  the  real  consist- 
ency with  satisfactionists.  But  with  all  wlio  hold  a  conditional 
penal  substitution,  especially  with  all  Arminians,  forgiveness  has  a 
real  conditionality.  Here,  indeed,  is  a  main  issue  between  Calvin- 
ism and  Arminianism  in  an  unended  polemics  of  centuries.  It  is 
the  historic  issue  of  monergism  and  synergism.  The  latter,  with  its 
'  Substitution :  Atonement. 


THEORIES  OF  ATONEMENT.  123 

full  meaning  of  conditionality  in  forgiveness  and  salvation,  is  ever 
the  unyielding  and  unwavering  position  of  Arminianism. 

The  question  recurs  respecting  the  consistency  of  such  a  condi- 
tionality with  penal  substitution  ;  or  whether  there  can  ,,(,  condition- 
be  a  conditional  penal  substitution.  Nothing  is  gained  alitv. 
by  asserting  simply  the  penal  character  of  Christ's  redemptive  suf- 
ferings, with  the  omission  of  their  strictly  substitutive  office.  In 
such  a  view  it  would  be  impossible  to  show  any  just  ground  or 
proper  end  of  the  punishment.  8in  is  the  only  ground  of  just  and 
wise  punishment.  Penal  substitution  must  never  depart  from  this 
principle.  If  Christ  suffered  punishment,  our  sin  must  have  been 
the  ground  of  his  punishment.  And  our  sin  must  have  suffered 
merited  punishment  in  him.  This,  and  only  this,  could  answer  to 
the  idea  of  a  necessity  for  punishment  in  the  case  of  sin — a  necessity 
arising  in  the  relation  of  sin  to  a  purely  retributive  justice.  There 
could  be  no  pretense  even  to  such  a  punishment,  except  as  our 
sins  were  imputed  to  Christ,  and  so  made  punishable  in  him.  But 
in  such  a  case  the  penal  substitution  is  real  and  absolute ;  sin  suf- 
fers its  merited  punishment  ;  absolute  justice  receives  its  full  re- 
tributive claim.  No  further  penalty  can  fall  either  upon  Christ  or 
upon  the  sinners  replaced  in  his  penal  substitution  ;  and  no  more 
upon  them  than  upon  him.  Their  discharge  is  a  requirement  of  jus- 
tice itself.     Hence  there  cannot  be  a  conditional  penal  substitution. 

8.  Leading  Theories. — We  here  name  together  the  moral,  sat- 
isfaction, and  governmental  theories  as  the  leading  ones.  But  we 
name  them  simply  with  a  view  to  the  indication  of  their  general 
character,  as  prefatory  to  their  more  formal  discussion. 

It  is  important  that  formulas  of  doctrine  should  consist  of  thor- 
oughly definitive  terms.     This,  however,  is  not  always 

FORMULAS. 

an  easy  attainment.  There  is  no  such  attainment  in 
these  formulas  of  atonement.  No  one  gives  what  is  cardinal  in  the 
theory  which  it  represents,  nor  clearly  discriminates  it  from  the 
others;  and  it  is  only  in  their  discussion  that  we  shall  ascertain 
their  respective  principles  and  distinctive  facts.  Their  general 
sense  may  be  very  briefly  given. 

The  moral  theory  regards  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ  as  ac- 
complished through  his  example  and  lessons  of  religious  truth, 
operative  as  a  practical  influence  with  men. 

The  theory  of  satisfaction  makes  fundamental  the  satisfaction 
of  an  absolute  retributive  justice  by  the  punishment  of  sin  in 
Christ  as  the  substitute  of  sinners  in  penalty.  It  admits  the  offices 
of  atonement  represented  by  the  other  two  theories,  but  only  as 
iiicidental. 


124  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

The  governmental  theory  gives  chief  prominence  to  the  office  of 
jnstice  in  the  interest  of  moral  government,  yet  holds  to  a  proper 
sense  of  satisfaction,  and  gives  full  place  to  the  principle  of  moral 
influence,  not,  however,  as  a  constituent  fact  of  atonement,  but  as 
a  practical  result  of  the  redemptive  economy.' 

1  Daniel  T.  Fisk  :  "The  Necessity  of  the  Atonement,"  Bibliotheca  Sacra, 
April,  1861.  The  article  of  Dr.  Fisk  presents  these  theories  in  a  very  clear 
view. 


TJIKOKV  OF  MOKAL  INFLUENCE.  125 


CHAPTER  Y. 

THEORY  OF  MORAL  INFLUENCE. 

This  theory  has  already  come  into  view,  and  more  than  once. 
It  is  one  of  the  three  which  we  propose  to  treat  more  fully  than 
those  previously  noticed.  We  do  not  concede  to  it  a  scientific  posi- 
tion. Strictly,  it  is  not  a  theory  of  atonement;  yet  it  is  such  in 
popular  enumeration,  and  one  of  no  little  prominence.  Its  treat- 
ment, however,  will  require  no  great  elaboration,  as  we  already  have 
its  principles;  and  especially  as  the  theory  is  one  of  simplicity  and 
clearness.  With  all  its  phases  its  fundamental  principle  is  ever 
one  and  easily  api)rehended. 

I.  Facts  of  the  Theoky. 

1.  The  Redemjjtive  Law. — The  mediation  of  Christ  fulfills  its 
redemptive  office  in  the  economy  of  human  salvation  through  the 
influence  of  its  own  lessons  and  motives,  as  practically  operative 
upon  the  soul  and  life  of  men.  Such  is  the  office  of  his  incarna- 
tion, if  admitted;  of  his  example,  teachings,  miracles,  sufferings, 
death,  resurrection,  ascension.  By  the  lessons  of  truth  so  given  and 
enforced  it  is  sought  to  enlighten  men;  to  address  to  them  higher 
motives  to  a  good  life;  to  awaken  love  in  grateful  response  to  the 
consecration  of  so  worthy  a  life  to  their  good;  to  lead  them  to  re- 
pentance and  piety  through  the  moral  force  of  such  a  manifestation 
of  the  love  of  God;  to  furnish  them  a  perfect  example  in  the  life 
of  Christ,  and  through  his  personal  influence  to  transform  them 
into  his  own  likeness.' 

Advocates  may  vary  the  summary  of  facts,  as  they  may  differ 
respecting  the  Christ,  but  the  result  is  simply  to  lessen  the  law  ever 
or  increase  the  possible  moral  force,  without  any  change  the  same. 
of  principle.  The  law  of  redemptive  help  is  ever  one,  whether 
Christ  be  viewed  as  essentially  divine  or  only  as  human.  With  his 
divinity  and  incarnation  the  synthesis  of  facts  may  embody  the 
larger  force  of  religious  motive;  but  this  is  all  the  advantage  from 
the  higher  Christology.  Such  is  the  moral  theory  of  redemption. 
Dr.  Bushnell  calls  it  "  the  moral  power  view; "  but  such  a  for- 
mula neither  alters  the  redemptive  law  nor  adds  to  its  saving 
'  Bruce  :   The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  pp.  326-328. 


126  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

efficiency.     The  ouly  advantage  is  in  a  little  more  force  of  expres- 
sion. 

2.  Sociniaji. — Historically,  the  theory  synchronizes  with  Socinus, 
deceased  1604,  and,  in  the  stricter  sense,  originated  with  him. 
Hence  it  may  properly  be  called  Socinian.  Abelard,  following- 
soon  after  Anselm,  propounded  similar  views,  which  were  favored 
somewhat  by  Peter  Lombard  and  others,  but  gave  no  exact  con- 
struction to  a  new  theory  in  opposition  to  the  more  prevalent 
church  doctrine.  He  exerted  but  a  transient  disturbing  influence 
upon  this  great  question,  and  left  the  Anselmic  doctrine  in  its  chief 
position.^ 

With  Socinus  the  moral  theory  sprung  naturally  from  his  system 
of  theology,  especially  from  his  Christology.  In  the  assertion  of 
Christ's  simple  humanity,  doctrinal  consistency  required  him  to 
reject  all  schemes  of  a  real  objective  atonement,  and  to  interpret 
the  mediation  of  Christ  in  accord  with  his  own  Christology.  The 
moral  theory  is  the  proper  result.  It  is  the  scheme  which  his  sys- 
tem of  theology  required,  and  the  only  one  which  it  will  consistently 
admit.  Affiliated  forms  of  Christianity — such  as  Unitarianism  and 
Universalism — naturally  and  consistently  adopt  the  same  theory. 
It  has  a  natural  affinity  with  all  rationalistic  views  of  Christianity. 

3.  Its  Dialectics. — The  moral  scheme,  arising  in  a  system  of 
theology  so  diverse  from  the  orthodox  faith,  and  so  antagonistic  it- 
self to  the  orthodox  atonement,  was  inevitably  polemical,  and  both 
defensively  and  offensively.  This  naturally  arose,  in  the  first  part, 
from  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures,  in  what  seems  their  obvious 
sense,  affirm  an  objective  atonement  in  Christ;  and  in  the  second 
part,  from  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  atonement  then  most  preva- 
lent was  open  to  serious  valid  objections,  and  especially  to  very 
plausible  ones. 

But  little  attempt  was  made  to  build  up  the  doctrine  on  the 
RKSPECTiNG  g^ound  of  thc  Scriptures.  The  main  attempt  was  to 
THE  SCRIPT-  set  aside  the  Scripture  proofs  alleged  in  supj)ort  of  the 
^'^^^'  church  doctrine.      In  this  endeavor  the  new  exegesis 

had  little  regard  for  well-established  laws  of  hermeneutics.  It  dealt 
freely  in  captious  criticism,  and  in  the  most  gratuitous  and  forced 
interpretations.  The  exigency  "of  the  case  required  such  a  method. 
Scripture  facts  and  utterances  are  so  clear  and  emphatic  in  the 
affirmation  of  an  objective  atonement  in  the  mediation  of  Christ  as 
the  only  and  necessary  ground  of  forgiveness,  that  the  new  scheme 

'  Shedd  :  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  ii,  pp.  286-288  ;  Cnnninghain : 
Historical  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  294-301  ;  Hill :  Lectures  in  Divinity,  pp.  414- 
422. 


THEORY  OF  .MORAL  INFLUENCE.  127 

found  in  such  a  method  its  only  possible  defense  against  their 
crushing  force.  We  have  no  occasion  to  follow  the  scheme  in  all 
this  exegesis.  The  truth  of  an  atonement  has  none;  and  the  round 
of  following  would  be  a  long  and  weary  one:  for  the  whole  issue 
concerns  other  great  questions  of  doctrine,  especially  of  anthro- 
pology and  Christology,  as  well  as  the  direct  question  of  atonement. 

Within  the  sphere  of  reason  the  new  scheme  was  boldly  offensive 
in  its  method.  Here  it  had  more  apparent  strength,  appeal  to 
and  could  be  plausible  even  when  not  really  potent.  rkasox. 
But  any  real  strength  bore  rather  against  a  particular  form  of  re- 
demptive doctrine  than  against  the  truth  itself.  The  array  of 
objections,  wrought  in  all  the  vigor  of  rhetoric  and  passion,  is  nuga- 
tory against  the  true  doctrine — as  will  appear  in  our  treatment  of 
objections.  Nor  are  we  answerable  in  the  case  of  such  as  are  valid 
against  a  doctrine  which  we  do  not  accept,  although  brought  from 
a  theological  stand-point  which  we  utterly  reject.  The  theory  of 
satisfaction,  as  constructed  in  the  Reformed  theology,  and  now  held 
as  the  more  common  Calvinistic  view,  is  open  to  such  objections. 
And  an  objection  is  none  the  less  valid  because  made  in  the  interest 
of  a  theory  much  further  from  the  truth  than  the  one  against  which 
it  is  alleged. 

Beyond  the  ground  of  valid  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  satisfac- 
tion, Socinianism  finds  a  sphere  of  plausible  objection  to  the  atone- 
ment itself.  A  fluency  of  words,  even  with  little  wealth  or  potency 
of  thought,  may  easily  declaim  against  its  unreason,  its  injustice, 
its  aspersion  of  the  divine  goodness,  its  implication  of  vindictiveness 
in  God,  its  subversion  of  moral  distinctions  and  obligations.  Very 
gifted  minds  have  given  to  such  declamation  all  possible  force.  It 
has  the  force  of  plausibility  on  false  assumptions  and  issues,  but  is 
impotent  in  the  light  of  truth.  This  will  appear  in  our  treatment 
of  objections  to  the  atonement. 

4.  Truth  of  Moral  Influence. — The  real  issue  with  the  Socinian 
scheme  does  not  concern  the  truth  of  a  helpful  moral  influence  in 
the  economy  of  redemption.  This  any  true  doctrine  of  atonement 
must  fully  hold.  The  issue  is  against  making  such  influence  the 
only  form  and  the  sum  of  redemptive  help  ;  indeed,  against  making 
it  a  constituent  fact  of  the  atonement  as  such. 

The  moral  influence  of  the  mediation  of  Christ  is  from  its  own 
facts,  and  not  a  part  of  the  atonement  itself.  If,  in  ^.^^^^  atoxk- 
the  case  of  a  rebellion,  a  son  of  the  sovereign  should,  ment,  not  of 
at  great  sacrifice,  interpose  in  such  provisional  measures 
as  would  render  forgiveness  on  proper  submission  consistent  with 
the  interest  of  the  sovereignty  ;  if  the  sovereign  should  be  concur- 


128  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

ring  with  the  son  in  such  provision  ;  and  if  such  grace  on  the  part 
of  both  the  sovereign  and  the  son  should  be  successfully  pleaded 
with  those  in  rebellion  as  a  reason  for  submission  and  loyalty,  it 
would  surely  be  unreason  to  maintain  that  such  moral  influence 
was  the  whole  atonement  in  the  case.  It  would  be  unreason  to 
maintain  that  it  was  any  part  of  it.  It  would  be  equally  so  with 
the  submission  thus  induced  as  a  necessary  condition  of  forgiveness. 
The  moral  influence  in  the  case  presupposes  the  atonement  and 
arises  out  of  the  grace  of  its  provisions.  Without  such  grace  there 
could  be  no  appeals  of  moral  potency.  The  very  pleas  which  give  per- 
suasive force  to  the  pleading  are  facts  of  grace  in  an  atonement  pre- 
viously made.  Hence  the  practical  force  or  moral  influence  of  a  pro- 
vision of  forgiveness  cannot  be  that  provision  itself,  nor  any  part  of  it. 
Such  are  the  facts  respecting  the  atonement  in  Christ.  Its  power 
of  moral  influence  lies  in  the  infinite  grace  revealed  in  its  provisions. 
The  Son  of  God,  as  the  gift  of  the  Father,  died  in  atonement  for  our 
sins,  that  we  might  be  forgiven  and  saved.  Here  is  the  plea  of 
moral  potency.  But  there  can  be  no  such  plea,  and,  therefore,  no 
such  moral  influence,  without  the  prior  fact  of  such  grace.  Hence 
the  unreason  of  accounting  the  practical  lesson,  or  moral  influence 
of  an  atonement,  the  atonement  itself,  or  any  constituent  jjart  of  it. 

Thus  the  question  of  a  helpful  practical  lesson  in  the  economy  of 
THE  REAL  rcdemptioii  is  not  one  respecting  its  reality,  but  one 
QUESTION.  respecting  its  place.  The  doctrine  of  a  real  atonement 
for  sin  gives  the  fullest  recognition  to  such  a  moral  influence,  and 
represents  its  greatest  possible  force.  Indeed,  such  an  influence 
is  the  very  life  and  power  of  all  evangelistic  work.  And  the  real 
moral  power  of  the  cross  is  with  the  Churches  to  which  it  is  a  real 
atonement  for  sin.  Through  all  the  Christian  centuries  such  an 
atonement  has  been  the  persuasive  power  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  the 
living  impulsion  of  all  the  great  evangelistic  enterprises  of  to-day. 
And,  as  the  history  of  the  past  throws  its  light  upon  the  future,  the 
persuasive  power  of  the  Gospel  in  winning  the  coming  generations 
to  Christ  must  be  in  the  moral  pathos  of  a  real  atonement  in  his 
blood. 

Such  a  doctrine  of  atonement  embodies  a  power  of  persuasion 

infinitely  greater  than  is  possible  to  any  scheme  of  re- 

MORAL  demptive  help  grounded  in  a  Socinian  Christology.     In 

POWER.  ^j^g  ^^g  ^^gg  ^g  j^g^^g  ^  divine  Mediator  ;  in  the  other,  a 

human  mediator ;  in  the  one,  a  real  atonement  for  sin  ;  in  the  other, 
no  atonement  for  sin.  In  the  former,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  his 
divine  Sonship,  his  incarnation,  the  profoundness  of  his  humilia- 
tion, the  depth  of  his  suffering  and  shame  of  his  cross — all  go  into 


TilKoltV  OF  MOHAI.  INFLUENCE.  129 

tlie  atonement,  and  combine  in  a  revelation  of  the  divine  holiness 
and  love  which  embodies  the  highest  potency  of  moral  influence. 
And  we  are  pleased  to  quote  and  adopt  a  very  forceful  expression  of 
the  marvelons  moral  power  of  the  cross  from  one  who  himself  de- 
nied an  objective  atonement  for  sin  in  the  death  of  Christ,  but  was 
able  to  give  such  expression  because  he  accepted  all  the  divine  veri- 
ties respecting  Christ  upon  which  a  true  doctrine  is  constructed: 

"■  This  is  the  unscrutable  mystery  of  incarnate  love  !  the  hidden 
spring  of  that  moral  power  over  the  human  heart  which,  in  myri- 
ads of  instances,  has  proved  irresistible.  On  the  one  hand,  God  in 
Christ — in  Christ  in  his  life,  in  Christ  on  the  cross — is  reconciling 
men  to  himself  and  employing  his  mightiest  instrument  for  recov- 
ering, gaining  back,  redeeming  the  world.  On  the  other  hand, 
Christ — Christ  in  his  life,  Christ  on  the  cross — is  God  impersonated, 
so  far  as  a  human  medium  and  method  of  impersonation  could 
reach.  Christ  is  the  nature  of  God  brought  near  and  unveiled  to 
human  eyes.  Christ  is  the  heart  of  God  laid  open,  that  men  might 
almost  hear  the  beat  of  its  unutterable  throbbings,  might  almost 
feel  the  rush  of  its  mighty  pulsations.  The  incarnate  in  his  life 
and  in  his  death,  in  his  words  and  in  his  deeds,  in  his  whole  char- 
acter, and  spirit,  and  work  on  earth,  was  ever  unveiling  the  Father, 
and  making  a  path  for  the  Father  into  the  human  soul.  But  on 
the  cross  Christ  presses  into  the  very  center  of  the  world's  heart, 
takes  possession  of  it,  and  there,  in  that  center,  preaches,  as  no- 
where else  was  possible,  the  gospel  of  God's  love  ! " ' 

II.  Its  Eefutatiox. 

We  already  have  the  facts  for  the  refutation  of  this  theory.  They 
are  of  two  classes:  one  respecting  the  reality  of  an  atonement  in 
Christ,  as  the  objective  ground  of  forgiveness  and  salvation;  the 
other  respecting  the  necessity  for  such  an  atonement.  The  former 
we  have  verified  by  the  Scriptures;  the  latter  by  both  the  Scriptures 
and  the  reason  of  the  case.  The  theory  of  moral  influence,  deny- 
ing, as  it  does,  the  atonement  as  the  ground  of  forgiveness,  and 
limiting  the  saving  work  of  Christ  to  the  office  of  a  practical  lesson 
of  piety,  has  a  most  thorough  refutation  in  these  facts.  We  refer 
to  them  as  previously  given.  This  reference  might  here  suffice;  yet 
it  is  proper  to  bring  this  theory  face  to  face  with  the  facts  and 
truths  whereby  it  has  its  refutation.  But  we  do  not  need  a  formal 
array  of  all  as  previously  maintained.  ^Jfor  need  they  be  presented 
just  in  the  order  then  observed.     The  theory  is  disproved  : 

1.  By  the  Fad  of  an  Atonement. — The  fact  of  an  objective  atone- 

'  Young  :  The  Life  and  Light  of  Men,  pp.  40,  41. 


13U  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

ment  iu  Christ  is  dependent  upon  the  Scriptures  for  its  revelation 
and  proof.  Even  the  conception  of  a  scheme  so  stupendous  iu 
its  character  never  could  originate  in  any  finite  mind.  The  idea 
THE  GREAT  includcs  not  only  the  fact  of  a  vicarious  sacrifice  of 
IDEA.  Christ  in  our  redemption,  but  also  the  vitally  related 

truths  of  his  divinity  and  incarnation.  It  includes,  also,  by  neces- 
sary implication,  the  very  truth  of  the  divine  Trinity  and  of  the 
unity  of  personality  in  Christ  as  the  God-man.  Such  truths  are 
from  above,  as  the  redeeming  Lord  is,  and  spoken  only  from 
heaven.  And  as  the  Redeemer  himself  can  be  known  only  by  rev- 
elation, so  the  full  purpose  of  his  mission  in  the  incarnation,  and  the 
nature  of  his  redeeming  work,  can  be  known  only  by  revelation. 
But  the  great  truths  so  given,  and  taking  their  place  in  vital  rela- 
tion to  the  saving  work  of  Christ — truths  of  his  divinity,  incarna- 
tion, and  personality  as  the  God-man — clearly  reveal  an  infinitely 
]3rofounder  purpose  in  his  suffering  and  death  than  can  be  fulfilled 
in  the  office  of  a  moral  lesson.  And  Socinianism,  in  all  its  phases, 
consistently  rejects  these  divine  truths  in  a  system  of  theology 
which  maintains  the  moral  theory  of  atonement.  But  their  rejec- 
tion is  not  their  disproof.  And  their  truth,  as  given  in  all  the 
clearness  and  authority  of  revelation,  is  conclusive  against  this 
theory. 

Then  we  have  the  fact  of  an  atonement,  not  only  as  the  logical 
PROOFS  OF  THE  impHcatlon  of  great  truths  so  vitally  connected  with 
FACT.  it,  but   also  in  such  facts  and  terms  of    Scripture  as 

clearly  contain  and  directly  assert  it. 

We  have  the  Gospel  as  a  message  of  forgiveness  and  salvation. 
Such  blessings  are  proclaimed  in  Christ,  and  in  him  only.  They 
are  specially  offered  through  his  sufferings  and  death.  Here  is  the 
fact  of  an  atonement. 

In  the  more  specific  terms  of  atonement  Christ,  in  his  sufferings 
and  death,  in  his  very  blood,  is  our  reconciliation,  our  propitiation, 
our  redemption.  He  is  such  for  us  as  sinners,  and  as  the  ground 
of  our  forgiveness.  These  are  vital  facts  in  the  economy  of  re- 
demption, and  the  very  source  of  its  practical  lesson.  And  how 
one-sided  ! — indeed,  how  no-sided  ! — the  scheme  which  accounts  the 
lesson  all,  and  rejects  the  atonement  out  of  which  it  arises  !  The 
theory  of  moral  influence  renders  no  satisfactory  account  of  these 
terms.  It  is  powerless  for  their  consistent  interpi-etation.  It  is, 
therefore,  a  false  theory.  No  doctrine  of  atonement  can  be  true 
which  will  not  fairly  interpret  the  terms  of  Scripture  in  which  it  is 
expressed. 

In  other  terms,  Christ  is  set  forth  in  his  death  as  a  sacrifice  for 


THEORY  OF  MORA  I.  INFLUENCE.  VM 

siu,  aud  one  to  be  interpreted  iu  tlie  liglit  of  the  typical  sacritices 
appertaining  to  earlier  economies  of  religion;  in  his  high-priestly 
office  offering  up  himself  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin;  in  his  high-priestly 
office  in  heaven,  into  which  he  enters  with  his  own  blood,  making 
intercession  for  us.  These  are  facts  of  a  real  atonement  in  Christ, 
and  conclusive  against  the  moral  theory. 

2.  By  its  Xecessitij. — The  necessity  of  an  atonement  in  the  blood 
of  Christ  as  the  ground  of  forgiveness  is  a  truth  of  proofs  ok  nk- 
the  Scriptures.  Thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer  and  (^ks^'ty. 
die,  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  might  be  preached  in 
his  name.'  There  is  salvation  in  no  other.^  If  righteousness,  or 
forgiveness,  were  by  tlie  law  Christ  is  dead  in  vain.'  If  right- 
eousness, or  forgiveness,  were  possible  by  any  law  given,  then  life 
would  be  by  the  law."  The  same  necessity  for  an  atonement  in 
Christ  is  affirmed  by  the  requirement  and  necessity  of  faith  in  him 
as  the  condition  of  salvation.  AVhat  will  the  moral  scheme  do  with 
such  facts  ?  How  Avill  it  interpret  such  texts  ?  It  has  no  power 
fairly  to  dispose  of  them,  or  to  interpret  them  consistently  with  its 
own  principles.  It  has,  therefore,  no  claim  to  recognition  as  a  true 
theory  of  atonement. 

And  how  will  the  moral  scheme  answer  for  the  necessity  of  an 
atonement  as  manifest  in  the  very  reason  of  the  case  ?  ^.^  answkk 
This  necessity  concerns  the  profoundest  interests  of  in  moral 
moral  government.  They  require  the  conservation  of 
law.  Such  law  requires  the  enforcing  sanction  of  penalty.  Hence 
its  remission  imperatively  reqviires  some  provisional  substitute 
which  shall  fulfill  its  rectoral  function.  The  moral  scheme  offers 
no  such  substitute.  It  must  ignore  the  most  patent  facts  of  the 
case.  It  must  deny  the  leading  truths  of  anthropology,  as  clearly 
given  in  both  sacred  and  secular  history.  It  must  attribute  to  for- 
giveness a  facility  and  indifference  consistent,  somewhat,  with  mere 
personal  relations,  but  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  interests  of 
government ;  most  of  all,  with  the  requirements  of  the  divine  moral 
government.  The  moral  theory,  therefore,  gives  no  answer  to  the 
real  necessity  for  an  atonement.  Yet  such  an  answer  is  an  impera- 
tive requirement.  The  theory  must  be  rejected.  The  necessity 
for  an  atonement  is  its  refutation. 

3.  Bij  the  Peculiar  Saving  Work  of  Christ. — The  theory  of  moral 
influence,  by  its  deepest  principles  and  by  its  very  con-      saviour  as 
tent  and  limitation,  implies  and  maintains  that  Christ     -'•'"  othkr. 
is  a  Saviour  in  no  other  mode  than  any  good  man  is,  or  may  bo. 
The  good  man  who,  by  his  example,  religious  instruction,  and  po?-- 

'Luke  xxiv,  46,  47.  'Acts  iv,  12.  'Gal.  ii,  21.  'Gal.  iii.  21. 


THE  FACT. 


132  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

sonal  influence,  leads  a  sinner  to  repentance  and  a  good  life,  saves 
him  as  really  and  fully  as  Christ  saves  any  sinner,  and  in  the  very 
same  mode.  The  law  of  salvation  is  identical  in  the  two  cases. 
The  mode  of  redemptive  help  is  one;  the  saving  force  one.  And 
the  sole  difference  between  Christ  and  any  good  man  in  saving  sin- 
ners is  in  the  measure  of  religious  influence  which  they  respectively 
exert.  Many  special  facts  respecting  Christ  may  be  freely  admit- 
ted. To  him  may  be  conceded  a  special  divine  mission,  a  superior 
character,  higher  spiritual  endowment,  greater  gifts  of  religious  in- 
struction, a  life  of  matchless  graces,  deeds,  and  sacrifices;  and  that 
all  combine  in  a  potency  of  unequaled  j^ractical  force.  Still,  he  is 
a  Saviour  in  no  peculiar  mode,  but  only  through  a  higher  moral  in- 
fluence. This  is  the  sum  of  his  distinction.  All  his  saving  work 
is  through  a  helpful  religious  lesson.  So  any  good  man  may  save 
sinners.     And  so  many  a  good  man  does  save  many  sinners. 

But  is  this  all  ?  Is  there  no  other  distinction  in  favor  of  Christ 
than  that  of  a  higher  moral  influence  practically  opera- 
tive upon  men  ?  Is  this  all  that  the  typical  services 
mean  ?  all  that  the  promises  and  prophecies  of  a  coming  Messiah 
signify  ?  all  the  meaning  of  the  angels  in  the  joyful  announcement 
of  the  blessed  advent  ?  all  that  Christ  meant  in  the  deeper  utter- 
ances of  his  saving  work  ?  all  that  the  apostles  have  written  in  the 
gospels  and  epistles  ?  all  that  they  accepted  in  faith  and  heralded 
in  preaching  ?  all  that  the  faith  of  the  living  Church  rightfully  em- 
braces ?  all  the  hope  of  a  consciously  sinful  and  helpless  humanity 
leaning  upon  Christ  for  help  ?  all  the  meaning  and  joy  of  the  saints 
in  the  presence  of  the  Lamb  slain,  as  there  in  grateful  love  and 
gladsome  song  they  ascribe  their  salvation  to  his  blood  ?  No,  no  ; 
this  is  not  all.  There  is  infinitely  more  in  the  saving  work  of 
Christ.  He  saves  us  in  a  unique  mode — one  in  which  no  other  does 
or  can  ;  saves  us  through  an  atonement  in  his  blood.  By  this  fact  is 
the  moral  theory  refuted. 

4.  Not  a  Theory  of  Atonement. — There  is  here  no  issue.  The 
facts  which  we  have  in  the  refutation  of  this  theory  deny  to  it  all 
rightful  position  as  a  theory  of  atonement.  It  will  neither  inter- 
pret the  Scriptures  which  reveal  the  atonement,  nor  answer  to  the 
real  necessity  for  one.  It  will  not  admit  any  proper  definition 
of  an  atonement.  It  is  in  fact  set  forth  and  maintained  in  the  de- 
nial of  one.  So,  by  the  decision  of  all  vitally  related  facts,  and  by 
the  position  of  its  advocates,  the  moral  scheme  is  not  a  theory  of 
atonement. 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  133 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THEORY   OF  SATISFACTION. 

A  CAREFUL  discrimination  of  leading  theories  on  any  great  ques- 
tion of  theology  is  helpful  to  its  clearer  apprehension  and  to  more 
definite  doctrinal  views.  But  such  discrimination  requires  a  careful 
study  of  the  theories  severally.  We  propose,  therefore,  to  give  spe- 
cial attention  to  tlie  theory  of  satisfaction  ;  and  tlie  more  as  the 
real  issue  respecting  the  nature  of  the  atonement  is  between  it  and 
the  governmental  theory,  rightly  constructed.' 

I.  Prelimij^aries. 

1.  Position  in  Doctrinal  Faith. — The  theory  of  satisfaction  holds 
a  prominent  place  in  theology.  Its  advocates  freely  call  it  the 
catholic  doctrine.  The  history  of  doctrines  certainly  records  a  very 
large  dissent.  Yet  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Calvinistic  system  its 
prominence  must  be  conceded.  But  even  here  it  is  only  the  lead- 
ing view.  Many  Calvinists  dissent ;  and  the  number  is  growing. 
It  is  difficult,  in  the  face  of  Scripture  and  an  infinite  redeeming 
love,  to  maintain  the  position  of  a  limited  atonement ;  with  many, 
impossible.  But  this  once  surrendered  and  a  general  one  maintained, 
consistency  requires  another  doctrine  of  atonement.  Here  is  one 
law  of  a  large  and  growing  dissent  of  Calvinists  from  the  doctrine 
of  satisfaction. 

2.  Formation  of  tlie  Doctritie. — The  doctrine  is  not  from  the  be- 
ginning. With  others,  it  has  its  place  in  the  history  of  doctrinal 
construction.  Nor  did  it  i-each  completeness  at  once.  It  went 
through  a  long  discussion,  and  appeared  in  different  phases.  The 
principle  of  penal  substitution  was  settled  first,  though  the  exact 
nature  of  it  is  scarcely  settled  yet.  But  this  was  found  to  be  insuffi- 
cient for  the  Reformed  system.  An  absolute  personal  election  to 
eternal  life  requires  a  ''  finished  salvation "  in  Christ.  And  the 
necessity  for  a  substitute  in  penalty  is  easily  interpreted  to  imply 

'  The  term  satisfaction  is  usually  conceded  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  ;  not, 
however,  as  an  exclusive  right,  but  on  the  ground  of  an  early  appropriation,  r.nd 
in  view  of  the  absolute  form  of  the  satisfaction  maintained.  Our  own  doctrine 
is  one  of  satisfaction,  and  none  the  less  really  such  because  the  nattire  of  the 
satisfaction  differs  from  that  maintained  in  the  Calvinistic  doctrine. 
11 


134  systp:mat]c;  theology. 

the  necessity  for  a  substitute  in  obedience.  The  law  is  no  more  ab- 
solute in  the  demand  for  punishment  than  in  the  requirement  of 
obedience.  Any  principles  which  could  admit  substitution  in  the 
former  could  equally  admit  it  in  the  latter.  And  in  this  system 
Christ  must  take  the  place  of  the  elect  under  the  law  in  both  facts. 
He  must  answer  for  their  sin  in  a  vicarious  punishment,  and  for 
their  duty  of  personal  righteousness  in  a  vicarious  obedience. 

Thus  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  found  its  place  and  full  expres- 
FKDERAL  THE-  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  "  Federal  Theology,"  the  logical  outcome  of 
oLOGY.  ■  the  Reformed  system.  "  Christ's  atonement  was  thus 
the  fulfillment  of  the  federal  conditions.  The  Father,  who  in  every 
part  of  this  great  transaction  was  at  once  the  Lawgiver  and  the  Foun- 
tain of  the  covenant,  insisted  on  the  full  performance  of  the  law,  and 
yet  provided  the  surety,  who  was  made  under  the  law  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term.  It  was  a  true  command  on  God's  side,  and  a 
true  obedience  on  Christ's  side.  He  stood  in  our  covenant,  which 
was  the  law  of  works  ;  that  is,  the  law  in  its  precepts  and  in  its 
curse."  ^ 

The  atonement  of  satisfaction  is  often  called  the  Anselmic,  and 
is  traced  to  the  scheme  of  Anselm  as  its  original.  We  have  previ- 
ously noted  the  insufficiency  of  his  scheme  as  a  scientific  basis  for 
this  doctrine ;  and  we  have  a  more  rational  account  of  its  genesis 
and  growth  as  the  logical  requirement  and  product  of  the  Calvinistic 
system. 

3.  Two  Factors  of  the  Atonement. — Thus  in  the  completed  doc- 
trine there  are  two  elements  or  factors — substituted  punishment 
and  substituted  obedience,  IS'othing  less,  it  is  claimed,  could  sat- 
isfy the  absolute  requirement  of  justice  and  law.  Sin  must  be 
punished  ;  but  its  punishment  neither  supersedes  nor  satisfies  the 
requirement  of  perfect  obedience.  The  elect  have  failed  in  this 
obedience,  and  never  can  fulfill  its  obligation  by  their  own  personal 
conduct.  Hence  they  need  a  substitute  in  obedience  as  much  as  in 
penalty.     Christ  answers  for  them  in  both. 

Such  is  the  atonement  of  satisfaction.  Christ  takes  the  place  of 
COMPLETE  SUB-  ^^^  clcct,  in  botli  penalty  and  precept,  and,  as  their 
sTiTUTioN.  substitute,  endures  the  punishment  which,  on  account 
of  sin,  they  deserve,  and  in  his  obedience  fulfills  the  righteousness 
required  of  them.  Thus  justice  and  law  are  satisfied.'  The  vicari- 
ous punishment  discharges  the  elect  from  amenability  to  penalty  on 
account  of  sin,  and  his  vicarious  obedience  renders  them  deservedly 

'  Smeaton  :  The  Apostles'  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  p.  540. 

'  Buchanan  :  The  Doctrine  of  Justification,  p.  308  ;  A.  A.  Hodge  :  The  Atone- 
ment, chap,  xviii ;  Shedd :  The  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  ii,  p.  341. 


thp:oky  of  satisfaction.  135 

rewardable  with  the  eternal  blessedness  to  which  they  are  predes- 
tinated. "Tlie  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice 
of  himself,  which  he,  through  the  eternal  Si)irit,  once  offered  unto 
God,  hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father,  and  purchased 
not  only  reconciliation,  but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  for  all  those  whom  the  Father  had  given  unto 
him.'" 

■4.  Concerned  with  the  Penal  Substitution. — In  the  review  of  this 
theory  we  shall  limit  the  treatment  to  the  one  element  of  satisfac- 
tion by  penal  substitution.  The  other  element  properly  belongs  to 
the  question  of  justification.  It  really  belongs  to  this  question  in 
the  Calvinistic  system,  though  treated  as  a  constituent  fact  of  the 
atonement  itself.  It  is  held  to  answer  to  an  absolute  requirement 
of  the  divine  law  as  really  as  the  substituted  punishment,  and,  by 
imputation  to  the  elect,  constitutes  in  them  the  ground  of  a  strictly 
forensic  justification.  This  is  a  justification  by  works,  not  in  for- 
giveness. "  If  Christ  fulfilled  the  law  for  us,  and  presents  his 
righteousness  to  its  demands  as  the  basis  of  our  justification,  then 
are  we  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  no  less  than  if  it  were  our 
own  personal  obedience  and  righteousness  by  which  we  are  justi- 
fied.'''^ But  in  any  view  of  the  question,  satisfaction  by  obedience 
respects  a  different  claim  and  office  of  justice  from  satisfaction  by 
punishment.  And  whatsoever  reason  satisfactionists  may  have,  as 
arising  from  their  own  soteriology,  for  the  inclusion  of  both  elements 
in  the  treatment  of  atonement,  we  have  no  reason  for  the  same 
method  in  our  review.  In  this  restricted  treatment  we  have  the 
precedence  of  a  master  in  the  soteriology  of  satisfaction :  "By 
the  way,  observe  I  speak  only  of  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  the 
passive  righteousness  of  Christ,  strictly  so  called.  .  .  .  "What  place 
that  active  righteousness  of  Christ  hath,  or  what  is  its  use  in  our 
justification,  I  do  not  now  inquire,  being  unwilling  to  inmix  my- 
self unnecessarily  in  any  controversy."* 

II.   Elements  of  the  Theoky. 

Most  of  the  elements  of  this  theory  have  already  appeared  ;  yet  it 
is  proper  that  they  here  be  stated  distinctly  and  in  order. 

1.  Satisfaction  of  Justice  in  Punishment. — The  satisfaction  of 
justice  in  its  punitive  demand  is  a  cardinal  fact  of  the  theory.  In- 
<leed,  it  is  so  essential  that  such  satisfaction  must  enter  into  the 

'  Westminster  Confession,  chap,  viii,  v. 

'^ Curry:   "Justification    by  Faith,"    Methodist    Q^iarterly  Review,  January, 
1845,  p.  22. 
^Owen  :  Works  (Goold's),  vol.  x,  p.  442. 


136  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

very  nature  of  the  atonement.  Both  a  moral  influence  with  men 
and  an  important  rectoral  office  are  admitted,  but  only  as  incidental. 
Not  even  the  latter  is  essential ;  nor  has  it  any  place  in  the  foun- 
dation of  the  doctrine.  But  the  satisfaction  of  divine  justice  in  the 
definite  sense  of  the  doctrine — satisfaction  in  the  punishment  of  sin 
according  to  its  demerit,  and  solely  for  that  reason — is  essential. 
It  is  not  omitted  in  the  case  of  the  redeemed  and  saved,  nor  can  it 
be.  The  atonement  is  in  a  mode  to  render  the  satisfaction  required. 
Indeed,  such  satisfaction  is  the  atonement  as  it  respects  the  claim 
of  retributive  justice  against  the  demerit  of  sin. 

2.  Tlirougli  Penal  Substitution. — In  this  doctrine  the  satisfaction 
is  by  substitutional  punishment.  The  absolute  necessity  for  the 
satisfaction  renders  this  the  only  possible  mode  of  redemption. 
Hence,  as  maintained,  Christ  takes  the  law-place  of  elect  sinners, 
and  suffers  in  their  stead  the  penalty  due  to  their  sins,  or  such  a 
penalty  as  satisfies  the  punitive  demand  of  justice  against  them. 

3.  Tliree  Forms  of  the  Substitution. — On  the  nature  of  the  penal 
substitution,  or  in  what  sense  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  sin, 
advocates  of  the  doctrine  have  not  been  of  one  mind.  Indeed,  it 
has  been  with  them  a  question  of  diverse  views  and  of  no  little  con- 
troversy. The  history  of  the  question  gives  us  three  forms  of 
opinion. 

One  view  is  that  of  identical  penalty  ;  but  it  has  such  palpable 
IN  IDENTICAL  dlfficulty  that  of  course  the  thinkers  of  a  great  Chris- 
PENALTY.  tian  communion  could  not  agree  in  it.     Yet  it  has  its 

place  in  the  history  of  Calvinistic  soteriology  ;  and,  though  now 
generally  discarded,  it  is  still  thought  worthy  of  the  attention  and 
adverse  criticism  of  the  Calvinistic  authors  holding  a  different  view. 
Once  great  divines  were  among  its  advocates  ;  for  instance,  John 
Owen.*  And  he  had  a  following,  and  such  that  it  is  common  to 
speak  of  his  school. 

It  is  needless  to  array  the  many  difficulties  of  such  a  view.  An 
identical  punishment  by  substitution  is  in  any  case  psychologically 
impossible.  What,  then,  must  be  the  fact  with  such  a  substitute  as 
Christ  ?  Punishment  is  suffered  in  the  consciousness  of  the  sub- 
ject. Its  nature,  therefore,  must  be  largely  determined  by  his  own 
personal  character  in  relation  to  sin  and  penalty.  It  is  hence  im- 
possible that  Christ  should  suffer  in  substitution  as  the  actual  sin- 
ner deserves  to  suffer,  and  would  suffer  in  his  own  punishment.     Nor 

'  That  which  I  maintain  as  to  this  point  in  difference  I  have  also  made  appar- 
ent. It  is  wholly  comprised  under  these  two  heads — first,  Christ  suffered  the 
eame  penalty  which  was  in  the  obligation  ;  secondly,  to  do  so  is  to  make  pay- 
ment ejusdem,  and  not  tantidem.  —  TFor&s  (Goold's),  vol.  x,  p.  448. 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  137 

can  such  a  principle  render  any  explanation  of  the  difference  between 
the  redemptive  sufferings  of  Christ  as  only  temporary,  and  the  mer- 
ited punishment  of  sinners  as  eternal.  Words  are  easily  uttered. 
Therefore  it  is  easy  to  attempt  a  solution  of  the  difficulty  by  say- 
ing that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  fulfilled  the  legal  requirements  of 
eternal  punishment,  because,  while  temporal  in  fact,  they  were 
■potentially  or  intensivelij  eternal.  But  such  terms  have  no  mean- 
ing in  such  a  use. 

Christ  endured  penal  sufferings  equal  in  amount  to  the  merited 
penal  sufferings  of  all  the  sinners  redeemed.  This  view,  i^  equal  pen- 
also,  has  its  place  in  historic  Calvinism,  and  a  broader  ^^^v. 
one  than  that  of  identical  penalty.  It  is  now  generally  discarded. 
Yet  its  present  disrepute  is  not  properly  from  any  fundamental 
principle.  If  possible  and  necessary,  it  would  be  permissible  on 
the  very  principle  of  penal  substitution.  It  is  rejected  as  impossi- 
ble, or  certainly  not  actual,  because  rendered  unnecessary  to  a  suffi- 
cient atonement  by  the  superior  rank  of  Christ  as  substitute  in  pen- 
alty. Strange  that  it  ever  should  have  found  favor  or  friend.  It 
needs  no  refutation.  And  all  friends  of  great  doctrinal  truth 
should  be  glad  that  now  it  is  generally  discarded. 

Another  view  is  that  of  equivalent  penalty.  The  sense  is,  that 
the  penal  sufferings  of  Christ,  while  far  less  in  quantity  ix  equivalent 
than  the  merited  penal  sufferings  of  the  sinners  re-  penalty. 
deemed,  were  yet,  in  quantity  and  quality  combined,  of  equal  value 
for  the  satisfaction  of  justice,  and,  therefore,  an  equivalent  substi- 
tute in  the  case.  The  higher  supiDlementary  quality  lies  in  the  su- 
perior rank  of  Christ  as  substitute  in  penalty.  It  is  as  the  payment 
of  gold  in  the  place  of  silver.  The  claim  is  satisfied  with  a  reduc- 
tion of  quantity  in  proportion  to  the  higher  quality  of  the  substi- 
tute.^ This  is  now  the  common  form  of  penal  substitution  as  held 
in  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction.  But  justice  must  have  penal  satis- 
faction, either  in  the  full  punishment  of  the  actual  offender  or  in 
an  equivalent  punishment  of  his  substitute. 

4.  An  Absolute  Snhstitution. — Atonement  by  substitution  is  not 
a  distinctive  fact  of  the  theory  of  satisfaction.  The  rectoral  theory 
holds  the  same  fact  fully  and  firmly.  Nor  is  an  atonement  by  penal 
substitution  a  distinctive  fact  of  that  doctrine.  Many  hold  such  a 
penal  substitution  as,  in  their  view,  constitutes  a  really  conditional 
ground  of  forgiveness.  In  this  scheme  the  redemptive  sufferings  of 
Christ  were,  in  some  sense  not  exactly  defined,  the  punishment  of  sin  ; 
but  not  such  a  punishment  that  the  redeemed  sinner  must  in  very 
justice  be  discharged.  We  have  previously  stated  the  inconsistency 
'  Shedd  :  Theological  Essays,  pp.  300,  301. 


138  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  position.  Penal  substitution  and  a  real  conditionality  of  for- 
giveness must  refuse  scientific  fellowship.  We  accept,  therefore, 
the  view  of  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  that  it  is  "by  a  happy  sacrifice  of 
logic "  that  Arminius  himself,  and  some  of  his  leading  followers, 
are  with  the  Calvinists  on  penal  substitution  ;  ^  only  we  reject  the 
epithet  qualifying  the  sacrifice.  We  do  not  think  it  a  liappij  sacri- 
fice of  logic  on  the  part  of  an  Arminian,  whereby  he  mistakes  the 
true  nature  of  the  atonement,  and  at  the  same  time  admits  a  prin- 
ciple which  requires  him,  in  consistency,  to  accept  along  with  it  the 
purely  distinctive  doctrines  of  Calvinism.  But  whatever  the  sacri- 
fice of  logic  in  the  case,  the  fact  of  such  a  theory  remains  the  same. 
And  this  fact  denies  to  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  the  distinctive 
fact  of  penal  substitution. 

It  hence  follows  that  the  distinctive  fact  of  the  satisfaction  the- 
THE  DisTiNc-  o^y  Is  au  absolute  penal  substitution  ;  absolute  in  the 
TivE  FACT.  sense  of  a  real  and  sufficient  punishment  of  sin  in  Christ 
as  substitute  in  penalty  ;  and  also  in  the  sense  of  an  unconditional 
discharge  of  all  for  whom  he  is  such  a  substitute.  Such  a  discharge 
follows  necessarily  from  the  very  nature  of  the  substitution  alleged, 
and  in  the  averment  of  the  very  masters  in  the  soteriology  of  satis- 
faction.    This  will  appear  in  its  place. 

III.  Justice  and  Atonement. 

1.  Tlieir  Intimate  Relation. — Were  there  no  justice  there  could  be 
no  sin  in  any  strictly  forensic  sense.  There  could  be  neither  guilt 
nor  punishment.  The  judicial  treatment  of  sin  is  from  its  relation 
to  justice  and  law.  It  can  neither  be  judicially  condemned  nor 
forgiven,  except  in  such  relation.  Hence,  as  the  atonement  is  the 
ground  of  the  divine  forgiveness,  there  must  be  a  most  intimate  re- 
lation between  it  and  justice.  And  for  a  true  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment we  require  a  true  doctrine  of  justice. 

It  follows  that  in  any  scientific  treatment  the  theory  of  atone- 
ment must  accord  with  the  doctrine  of  justice  upon  which  it  is 
constructed.  The  atonement  of  satisfaction  is  exceptionally  rigid 
in  its  conformity  to  this  law.  The  same  law  is  observed  in  the 
rectoral  atonement ;  yet  here  its  relation  to  justice  has  not  been  as 
fully  and  exactly  treated  as  it  should  be,  and  as  it  must  be  in  order 
to  a  right  construction  and  exposition  of  the  doctrine.  These  facte 
require  some  specific  statements  respecting  justice  which  may  be 
appropiate  here,  though  the  fuller  treatment  will  be  in  connection 
with  the  principles  specially  concerned  in  the  question,  as  we  find 
them  in  the  satisfaction  and  rectoral  theories. 
'  The  Atonement,  p.  14. 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  130 

2.  Distinctions  of  Justice. — Technically,  Justice  is  of  several 
kinds ;  but,  strictly,  such  distinctions  are  from  its  different  rela- 
tions and  offices  rather  than  intrinsic  to  itself. 

Commutative  justice  has  a  commercial  sense,  and  is  specially  con- 
cerned with  business  transactions.  The  rendering  or  j^^  oommita- 
requiring  an  exact  due  or  equivalent,  and  whether  in  tive. 
money  or  other  commodity,  is  commutative  justice.  It  has  no 
admitted  place  in  the  atonement,  except  in  the  now  generally 
discarded  sense  of  identical  or  equal  penalty.  Whether  that  of 
equivalent  penalty  is  logically  clear  of  the  principle  we  may  yet 
inquire. 

Distributive  justice  is  justice  in  a  moral  and  judicial  sense.  It 
regards  men  as  under  moral  obligation  and  law;  as  obedient  or  dis- 
obedient; as  morally  good  or  evil  in  their  personal  char-  ^g  distribi-- 
acter ;  and  is  the  rendering  to  them  reward  or  punishment  '•'i^*^- 
according  to  their  personal  conduct.  Some  divide  it  into  premial 
and  punitive;  but  the  sense  is  not  thereby  changed. 

Public  justice,  in  its  relation  to  moral  government,  is  not  a  dis- 
tinct kind,  but  simply  divine  justice  in  moral  adminis- 
tration.  It  is  really  one  with  distributive  justice,  prop- 
erly interpreted.  We  do  not  accept  the  interpretation  of  satisfac- 
tionists.  On  the  other  hand,  advocates  of  the  rectoral  atonement 
have  unduly  lowered  the  truth  of  public  justice.  On  a  right  expo- 
sition of  each,  the  two  are  one.  But  we  shall  find  a  more  appro- 
priate place  for  the  treatment  of  public  justice  when  discussing  the 
governmental  atonement.' 

3.  Punitive  Justice  and  Satisfaction. — Punitive  justice  is  jus- 
tice in  the  punishment  of  sin,  or  the  office  of  which  is  to  punish 
sin.  And  punitive,  as  a  qualifying  term,  best  expresses  that  prin- 
ciple of  justice  which  the  theory  under  review  claims  to  have  been 
satisfied  by  the  penal  substitution  of  Christ. 

Remunerative  justice  has  respect  to  obedience  and  its  reward. 
The  law,  as  its  expression,  requires  perfect  obedience  as  the  ground 
of  the  reward.  And,  on  the  theory  of  satisfaction,  Christ  by  his 
personal  obedience  meritoriously  fulfilled  the  law  in  behalf  of  the 
elect.  But  his  righteousness  so  represented  as  an  element  of  atone- 
ment in  the  satisfaction  of  justice  respects  an  essentially  different 
principle  from  that  concerned  in  his  penal  substitution,  and,  as  be- 
fore noted,  has  no  proper  j^lace  in  the  present  discussion. 

Then  the  essential  fact  of  punitive  justice  is,  that  it  punishes  sin 
according  to  its  demerit,  and  on  that  ground;  and  must  none  tlie 

'  Wardlaw  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  368-372  ;  Owen  :  A  Dissertation 
on  Divine  Justice,  part  i,  Works  (Goold's),  vol.  x. 


140  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

less  so  punish  it  in  the  total  absence  of  every  other  reason  or  end. 
Such  is  the  justice  which  the  theory  under  review  claims  to  have 
been  satisfied  by  the  penal  substitution  of  Christ. 

IV.  Pkinciples  of  the  Theory. 

The  theory  of  satisfaction  necessarily  posits  certain  principles  as 
underlying  the  doctrine  of  atonement  which  it  maintains.  They 
must  constitute  the  very  basis  of  the  doctrine.  Yet  for  the  present 
they  require  but  a  brief  statement. 

1.  The  Demerit  of  Sin. — Sin  has  intrinsic  demerit.  It  deserves 
the  retribution  of  divine  justice  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  evil,  and 
entirely  irrespective  of  all  salutary  results  of  its  punishment. 

We  accept  this  principle,  and  in  the  fullest  persuasion  of  its 
truth.  It  is  a  truth  in  fullest  accord  with  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Their  announced  penalties  represent  this  demerit.  Such 
penalties  have  no  other  ground  in  justice.  And  our 
moral  consciousness,  especially  under  divine  enlightenment  and 
quickening,  responds  to  the  voice  of  Scripture.  But  the  punitive 
demerit  of  sin,  so  given  and  affirmed,  is  in  no  discord  with  our  own 
doctrine  of  atonement. 

3.  A  Divine  Punitive  Justice.- — There  is  a  punitive  justice  in 
God.  And  it  is  'a  fact  of  his  very  nature,  as  specific  and  real  as  any 
other  fact.  It  is  no  mere  phase  of  his  benevolence,  nor  simply  a 
reaction  of  his  pity  for  one  wronged,  against  the  author  of  his 
wrong.  God,  in  his  very  justice,  condemns  sin  as  such.  Nor  is 
such  condemnation  a  mere  judgment  of  its  discordance  with  his 
own  uttered  precepts,  or  with  some  ideal  or  impersonal  law,  or  with 
the  welfare  of  others,  but  the  profoundest  emotional  reprobation  of 
it  because  of  its  inherent  evil. 

So  we  maintain.  Hence  we  reject  the  view  of  Leibnitz,  and  of 
all  agreeing  with  him,  "  that  justice  is  a  modification 
of  benevolence ;  ^' '  a  view  that  has  received  too  much 
favor  from  advocates  of  the  rectoral  atonement.  Whether  the  love 
of  God  is  his  supreme  law  in  moral  administration  is  really  another 
question,  and  one  not  negatived  by  the  truth  of  his  justice.  But 
our  own  moral  nature,  as  divinely  constituted,  joins  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures  in  attesting  the  truth  of  such  a  divine  justice.  Our 
moral  reason  distinguishes  between  the  turpitude  of  a  sinful  deed 
and  the  injury  which  it  may  inflict.  A  like  injury,  innocently 
done,  awakens  no  such  reprobation.  We  reprobate  the  intention 
of  injury  where  the  doing  is  hindered.  Thus  our  moral  reason 
witnesses  for  a  divine  justice.     Such  justice,  in  its  deepest,  divinest 

'  Gilbert  :    The  Christian  Atonement,  p.  185. 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  141 

form,  condemns  Bin  as  such,  and  is  a  disposition  to  punish  it.     We 
maintain  this  view. 

3.  Sin  Ought  to  he  Punished. — This  proposition  is  freely  af- 
firmed, but  with  little  regard  to  its  proper  analysis,  and,  therefore, 
with  little  apprehension  of  its  meaning.  A  sinner  may  say,  and 
with  all  sincerity,  that  he  ought  to  be  punished ;  but  all  he  means 
is,  that  he  deserves  to  be  punished.  He  has  in  mind  and  conscience 
his  own  demerit,  and  not  the  obligation  of  another  respecting  him. 
Often  the  term  is  used  resjiecting  sin  in  the  same  sense — that  it  de- 
serves to  be  punished ;  but  this  adds  nothing  to  what  we  already 
have.  The  proposition  is  identical  in  meaning  with  a  former  one, 
which  affirms  the  punitive  desert  of  sin. 

But  the  term  ought,  as  used  in  the  theory  of  satisfaction,  must 
have  a  ground  in  obligation,  and  that  obligation  must  lie  upon  God 
as  moral  Kuler.  Such  is  the  requirement  of  the  theory.  div,xe  obli- 
If  sin  ought  to  be  punished,  God  is  under  obligation  to  cation. 
punish  it.  Such  is  the  inevitable  logic  of  the  proposition.  This 
carries  satisfactionists  into  a  very  high  position,  and  one  very  diffi- 
cult to  hold,  but  which  they  must  hold  or  suffer  a  destructive 
breach  in  their  line  of  necessary  principles.  For  such  divine  ob- 
ligation, whether  understood  as  included  in  the  meaning  of  the 
proposition  or  not,  is  a  logical  implication  and  necessity  of  the 
scheme.  And  this  obligation  must  be  maintained  simply  on  the 
ground  of  demerit  in  sin,  and  apart  from  all  the  interests  of  moral 
government. 

4.  Pejial  Satisfaction  a  Necessity  of  Justice. — Sin  must  be  pun- 
ished. It  must  be  punished  on  its  own  account,  and  none  the  less 
in  the  total  absence  of  all  .salutary  influence  of  punishment,  whether 
upon  the  sinner  himself  or  upon  the  public  virtue  and  welfare. 
It  is  a  necessity  of  Judicial  rectitude  in  God.  Divine  justice  must 
have  penal  satisfaction.  This  jorinciple  is  really  one  with  that  im- 
mediately preceding.  It  is  the  last  that  we  need  name.  And  here 
we  part  with  the  theory  of  satisfaction.  TVe  do  not  admit  this 
principle.  We  reject  it,  not  only  as  without  evidence  of  its  truth, 
but  also  because  of  evidence  to  the  contrary. 

The  irremissibility  of  penalty  is  the  determining  principle  of 
the  theory  of  satisfaction.  Merited  penalty  is  absolutely  detkrminixg 
irremissible  on  any  and  all  grounds  whatsoever.  The  principle. 
scheme  allows  a  substitute  in  place  of  the  offender;  but  such 
an  exchange  of  subjects  in  punishment  is  no  omission  of  penalty. 
The  offender  is  discharged,  but  his  substitute  suffers  the  deserved 
penalty  in  his  stead;  or  suffers,  at  least,  its  penal  equivalent  with 
the  divine  law.     This,  indeed,  is  the  very  averment  of  the  doctrine. 


142  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Nor  is  there  any  omission  of  punishment  in  an  exchange  of  measure 
which  justice  permits  in  view  of  the  higher  rank  of  the  substitute. 
In  any  and  every  way  there  is,  and  there  must  be,  the  infliction  of 
deserved  penalty.  The  sinner  or  his  substitute  must  be  punished 
according  to  the  demerit  of  the  sin.  This  is  the  necessity  for  an 
atonement  in  the  scheme  of  satisfaction.  Hence  the  absolute  irre- 
missibility  of  penalty  determines  the  atonement  to  be  by  penal  sub- 
stitution. There  is  no  other  possible  atonement.  We  know  and 
welcome  the  account  made  of  the  rank  and  worth  of  Christ  as  penal 
substitute;  an  account  logically  valueless  and  unnecessary  with  the 
forms  of  identical  and  equal  penalty,  but  consistent  with  that  of 
equivalent  penalty.  But  even  here  they  are  of  account  only  as  they 
give  punitive  value  to  his  atoning  sufferings;  so  that,  as  before 
noted,  justice  is  satisfied  with  a  less  quantity  in  proportion  to  the 
higher  quality.  Still  it  is  only  penal  suffering  that  counts  in  this 
element  of  atonement.  And  the  very  substance  of  such  an  atone- 
ment is  substituted  punishment  in  satisfaction  of  an  absolute  puni- 
tive justice. 

Y.  The  vSatisfaction  Impossible  by  Substitution. 

If  sin  must  be  punished  in  the  measure  of  its  desert,  penal  sub- 
stitution is  the  only  conceivable  mode  of  atonement.  But  such  an 
atonement  is  possible  only  as  the  substitution  may  fulfill  the  abso- 
lute obligation  of  justice  in  the  punishment  of  sin.  The  require- 
A  CRUCIAL  ment  is  a  crucial  test  of  the  theory.  There  is  much 
TEST.  perplexity  in  its  treatment.     The  vacillations  of  opin- 

ion and  diversities  of  view  clearly  show  this  perplexity.' 

The  effect  of  the  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ,  and  the  nature  and 
degree  of  his  penal  sufferings,  are  questions  entering  deeply  into 
POINTS  OF  PER-  the  difficulties  of  the  subject.  Did  imputation  carry 
pLExiTY.  QYQY  sin,  with  its  turpitude  and  demerit,  or  only   its 

guilt,  to  him  ?  Did  he  suffer,  instead  of  the  elect,  the  same  punish- 
ment which,  otherwise,  they  must  have  suffered  ?  Did  he  endure 
penal  suffering  equal  in  amount,  though  differing  in  kind,  to  the 
merited  punishment  of  the  redeemed  ?  Did  he  suffer  an  equivalent 
punishment,  less  in  amount  but  of  higher  value,  and  thus  a  penal 
equivalent  with  justice  ?  Did  he  suffer  the  torment  of  the  finally 
lost  ?  Was  his  punishment  potentially  or  intensively  eternal  ?  Such 
questions  have  been  asked  and  answered  affirmatively ;  though  a 
negative  is  now  mostly  given  to  those  of  more  extreme  import.  The 
boldness  of  earlier  expositors  is  mainly  avoided   in  the  caution  of 

•  Bruce  :  The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  pp.  436—447  ;  Methodist  Quarterly  Re- 
view, July,  1846. 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  143 

the  later.  The  former  are  more  extravagant,  the  latter  less  con- 
sistent. But  the  theory,  in  every  phase  of  it,  asserts  the  just  pun- 
ishment of  sin  in  Christ ;  and,  therefore,  asserts  or  implies  all  that 
is  requisite  to  such  punishment.  A  denial  of  any  such  requisite  is 
suicidal. 

In  denying  the  possible  satisfaction  of  a  purely  retributive  justice 
by  a  substitute  in  penalty  we  are  content  to  make  the  issue  with 
the  more  moderate  and  carefully  guarded  position  of  satisfactionists.N 
This  is  but  polemical  fairness,  as  such  is  now  the  more  common' 
position. 

1.  The  Satisfnction  Xecessary. — The  necessary  satisfaction  of  jus- 
tice, as  maintained  in  this  theory,  respects  not  merely  a  punitive 
disposition  in  God,  but  specially  and  chiefly  an  obligation  of  his 
justice  to  punish  sin  according  to  its  demerit,  and  on  that  ground. 
It  is  because  the  punishment  of  sin  is  a  necessity  in  the  rectitude  of 
divine  justice  that  the  only  possible  atonement  is  by  penal  substi- 
tution. 

This  position  is  so  important  in  the  present  question  that  we 
should  have  the  views  of  leading  satisfactionists  respect- 
ing it.  "  The  law  of  God,  which  includes  a  penalty  as 
well  as  precepts,  is  in  both  a  revelation  of  the  nature  of  God.  If 
the  precepts  manifest  his  holiness,  the  penalty  as  clearly  manifests 
his  justice.  If  the  one  is  immutable,  so  also  is  the  other.  The 
wages  of  sin  is  death.  Death  is  what  is  due  to  it  in  justice,  and 
what,  without  injustice,  cannot  be  withheld  from  it.'' '  ''  Justice  is 
a  form  of  moral  excellence.  It  belongs  to  the  nature  of  God.  It 
demands  the  punishment  of  sin.  If  sin  be  pardoned,  it  can  be 
pardoned  in  consistency  with  the  divine  justice  only  on  the  ground 
of  a  forensic  penal  satisfaction."^  '*  The  Scriptures,  however,  as- 
sume that  if  a  man  sins  he  must  die.  On  this  assumption  all  their 
representations  and  arguments  are  founded.  Hence  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation which  the  Bible  reveals  supposes  that  the  justice  of  God, 
which  renders  the  punishment  of  sin  necessary,  has  been  satisfied."* 
The  position  maintained  in  these  citations  is  clearly  given,  and  fully 
agrees  with  our  statement.  From  the  nature  of  justice  the  punish- 
ment of  sin  is  necessary.  The  obligation  is  such  that  any  omission 
of  punishment  would  be  an  act  of  injustice.  Thus,  from  the  very 
nature  of  divine  justice,  the  necessary  punishment  of  sin  is  de- 
duced as  a  consequence.  It  is  as  essential  and  immutable  in  God 
as  any  other  attribute  ;  therefore  he  must  punish  sin  according  to 
its  desert,  and  on  that  ground.     Thus  his  justice  binds  him  to  the 

'  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  i,  p.  423. 
Ubid.,  vol,  ii,  p.  488.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  492. 


141  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

infliction  of  merited  punishment  upon  sin,  just  as  other  moral  per< 
fections  bind  him  to  holiness,  goodness,  truth. 

We  may  give  other  authorities.  "  But  again,  concerning  this  Jus- 
additional  tice,  another  question  arises.  Whether  it  be  natural  to 
AUTHORITIES.  God,  or  au  essential  attribute  of  the  divine  nature — 
that  is  to  say,  such  that  the  existence  of  sin  being  admitted,  God 
must  necessarily  exercise  it,  because  it  supposes  in  him  a  constant 
and  immutable  will  to  punish  sin,  so  that  while  he  acts  consistently 
with  his  nature  he  cannot  do  otherwise  than  punish  and  avenge  it — 
or  whether  it  be  a  free  act  of  the  divine  will,  which  he  may  exer- 
cise at  pleasure  ? "  '  This  is  submitted  as  a  question.  There  are 
really  two  questions  ;  but  we  are  concerned  simply  with  the  fact  that 
Owen  maintains  the  position  of  the  former ;  and  we  are  now  con- 
cerned with  this  only  in  its  relation  to  penal  substitution.  It  as- 
serts a  necessity  in  the  very  nature  of  God  for  the  punishment  of  sin 
simply  as  such  ;  a  necessity,  not  from  the  domination  of  a  punitive 
disposition,  but  from  the  requirement  of  judicial  rectitude.  "  God 
is  determined,  by  the  immutable  holiness  of  his  nature,  to  punish 
all  sin  because  of  its  intrinsic  guilt  or  demerit ;  the  effect  produced 
on  the  moral  universe  being  incidental  as  an  end.^'  ^  "  Law  has  no 
option.  Justice  has  but  one  function.  . . .  The  law  itself  is  under  law; 
that  is,  it  is  under  the  necessity  of  its  own  nature  ;  and,  therefore, 
the  only  possible  way  whereby  a  transgressor  can  escape  the  penalty 
of  law  is  for  a  substitute  to  endure  it  for  him."  '  Here,  again,  we 
have  the  same  doctrine  of  an  immutable  obligation  of  divine  justice 
to  punish  sin,  and  none  the  less  in  the  absence  of  every  other  reason 
than  its  own  demerit.  We  here  make  no  issue  with  the  doctrine, 
but,  as  before  noted,  give  it  prominence  on  account  of  its  vital  logi- 
cal connection  with  the  doctrine  of  penal  substitution. 

2.  Tlie  Substitution  Maintained. — There  is  also  a  vital  logical 
connection  between  the  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ  and  his  penal 
substitution  in  atonement.  In  any  proper  treatment  of  the  ques- 
tion the  two  facts  must  be  in  scientific  accordance.  And  we  have, 
with  the  carefully  guarded  doctrine  of  substitution,  an  equally 
cautious  exposition  of  the  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ.  In  such  ex- 
position sin  is  treated  analytically,  not  as  a  concrete  whole.  This 
is  necessary  to  the  moderation  of  the  theory  maintained.  For  to 
treat  sin  as  a  whole,  and  to  allege  its  imputation  to  Christ  and  just 
punishment  in  him,  is  to  involve  the  facts  of  the  more  extravagant 
theory.     Guilt  is  distinguished  from  the  attributes  of  turpitude, 

'  Owen  :  Works  (Goold's),  vol.  x,  p.  505. 
'  A.  A.  Hodge  :   The  Atonement,  p.  53. 
8  Shedd  :  Theological  Essays,  p.  287. 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  146 

criminality,  demerit,  and  claimed  to  be  separable  from  sin  in  the 
deeper  sense,  both  in  thought  and  fact.  It  is  freely  admitted  that 
the  transference  and  substitutional  punishment  of  sin  in  the  former 
sense  is  an  impossibility  ;  but  it  is  fully  claimed  that  guilt — the 
amenability  of  sin  to  the  penalty  of  justice — could  be  transferred 
to  Christ  and  justly  punished  in  him. 

We  shall  give  this  view  from  Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  It  has  no  bet- 
ter authority.  "By  guilt,  many  insist  on  meaning  dkmeritpure- 
personal  criminality  and  ill  desert ;  and  by  punishment,  ^^  pkksonal. 
evil  inflicted  on  the  ground  of  such  personal  demerit.  In  these 
senses  of  the  words  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  and  vicarious 
punishment  would,  indeed,  involve  an  impossibility.  .  .  .  And  if 
punishment  means  evil  inflicted  on  the  ground  of  personal  demerit, 
then  it  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  the  innocent  can  be  punished. 
But  if  guilt  expresses  only  the  relation  of  sin  to  justice,  and  is  the 
obligation  under  which  the  sinner  is  placed  to  satisfy  its  demands, 
then  there  is  nothing  .  .  .  which  forbids  the  idea  that  this  obliga- 
tion may,  on  adequate  grounds,  be  transferred  from  one  to  another, 
or  assumed  by  one  in  the  place  of  others."'  The  omissions  can- 
not in  the  least  affect  the  sense  of  the  author.  Leading  facts  are 
clearly  given  in  the  passage  cited.  One  is,  that  moral  character  is 
absolutely  untransferable  ;  another,  that  if  punishment  is  a  judicial 
infliction  upon  the  ground  of  personal  demerit,  the  satisfaction  of 
justice  by  penal  substitution  is  impossible.  Hence  the  distinction 
of  sin  into  personal  demerit  and  guilt,  and  the  assumption  that  the 
latter,  as  the  legal  amenability  of  sin,  could  be  transferred  to  Christ, 
and  punished  in  him  in  fulfillment  of  the  punitive  obligation  of 
justice. 

3.  No  Ansioer  to  the  Necessity. — "We  now  have  the  facts  respect- 
ing the  alleged  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin,  and  also  the 
facts  of  penal  substitution  as  meeting  that  necessit3%  Do  the  latter 
answer  to  the  requirements  of  the  former  ?  Does  the  penal  substi- 
tution maintained  fulfill  the  alleged  absolute  obligation  of  justice 
to  punish  sin  according  to  its  demerit  ?  There  is  no  such  answer  or 
fulfillment.     So  we  affirm,  and  proceed  to  the  proof. 

The  analytic  treatment  of  sin  is  entirely  proper  if  it  be  remem- 
bered that  such  treatment  is  in  thought  only.  And  we  may  dis- 
tinguish between  the  demerit  and  the  guilt  of  sin,  using  the  former 
term  in  the  sense  of  its  intrinsic  evil,  and  the  latter  in  the  sense  of 
its  amenability  to  retributive  justice.  In  the  former  sense,  we  have 
sin  in  the  violation  of  obligation  ;  in  the  latter,  under  judicial 
treatment.  Is  such  distinction  a  sufficient  ground  for  the  more 
'  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  533. 


146  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

moderate  theory  of  substitutional  punishment  constructed  upon  it  ? 
If  so  sufficient,  will  such  substitution  answer  to  the  absolute  neces- 
sity for  the  punishment  of  sin  which  the  theory  asserts  ? 

It  should  here  be  specially  noted  that  the  j)rinciples  of  the  theory 
PRINCIPLES  ^^^  Jiot  even  modified,  much  less  surrendered.  They  are 
STILL  HELD.  gtH]  asscrtcd  and  held  in  all  their  integrity  and  strength 
as  the  very  necessity  for  an  atonement,  and  as  determinative  of  its 
nature  in  the  substitutional  punishment  of  sin.  We  have  previ- 
ously seen  what  these  principles  are.  And  they  are  inseparable  from 
the  doctrine  of  satisfaction.  We  have  also  given  citations  from 
leading  authors  in  the  unqualified  assertion  of  an  absolute  neces- 
sity for  the  punishment  for  sin.  Advocates  of  the  more  moderate 
theory  of  imputation  and  penal  substitution  are  no  exception.  All 
agree  in  the  obligation  of  divine  justice  to  punish  sin  according  to 
its  demerit,  and  on  that  ground.  But  it  is  denied  that  the  turpi- 
tude and  demerit  of  sin  can  be  transferred  to  Christ.  All  that  is 
claimed,  or  even  admitted  to  be  so  transferred,  is  the  guilt  of  sin  ; 
guilt  as  an  amenability  to  the  retribution  of  justice.  Is  such  a  sub- 
stitution the  merited  punishment  of  sin  ? 

Nothing  could  be  punished  in  Christ  which  was  not  transferred 
SIN  NOT  TRANS-  ^^  him,  aud  in  some  real  sense  made  his.  This  is  self- 
FERRED.  evident.     Hence,  if  sin,  with  its  demerit,  could  not,  as 

now  admitted,  be  put  upon  Christ  by  imputation,  no  punishment 
which  he  suffered  fell  upon  such  demerit,  or  intrinsic  evil  of  sin. 
And  we  think  it  impossible  to  show  how  sin  is  punished  according 
to  its  demerit,  and  on  that  ground,  in  the  total  absence  of  such  de- 
merit from  the  substitute  in  punishment.  With  the  admission  of 
the  theory,  its  only  resource  is  in  guilt  as  a  distinct  fact  of  sin. 
If  guilt,  as  the  amenability  of  sin  to  the  penalty  of  justice,  is  sepa- 
rable from  sin,  and  as  a  distinct  fact  transferable  to  Christ,  and  if 
his  punishment,  as  so  constituted  guilty,  is  the  punishment  of  sin 
according  to  its  demerit  and  on  that  ground,  then  the  penal  sub- 
stitution maintained  answers  to  the  asserted  absolute  necessity  for 
the  punishment  of  sin.  If  any  one  of  these  suppositions  fails  the 
theory,  then  the  theory  itself  inevitably  fails. 

Guilt,  as  distinctively  treated  in  this  theory,  arises  in  the  rela- 
tion of  sin  to  divine  justice,  and  as  an  obligation  of  sin 

GUILT  NOT  SIN.      ,  ~>  ,  ''  t       •  i     i5  T 

to  suffer  the  merited  penalty  of  justice.  It  is  so  defined 
and  discriminated  from  the  turpitude  of  sin  in  the  carefully  exact 
statement  recently  cited  from  Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  He  makes  the 
same  distinction  elsewhere.'  But  guilt,  considered  as  apart  from 
sin,  exists  only  in  conception,  not  in  objective  reality.  It  may  be 
'  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  189. 


THEOllY  OF  SATISFACTION.  147 

said  that  it  becomes  a  concrete  fact  in  Christ  by  imputation  to  him. 
Then  the  result  is  a  guilty  Christ.  But  guilty  of  what  ?  Not  of 
gin,  for  that  is  not  transferred  to  him,  nor  in  any  proper  sense 
made  his.  Guilty  of  guilt,  we  may  suppose.  For  as  guilt  is  the 
only  thing  imputed,  and  the  imputation  makes  him  guilty,  we  find 
no  better  expression  of  the  fact  in  the  case.  There  seems  a  harsh- 
ness even  in  such  an  exf)ression ;  yet  it  is  mollified,  by  the  fact 
that  at  most  Christ  is  guilty  of  only  a  conceptual  guilt. 

But  the  original  difficulty  remains.  Guilt,  apart  from  sin,  is  still 
guilt  in  the  abstract,  and  exists  only  in  conception,  as  much  so  as 
roundness,  concavity,  redness.  And  how  could  such  a  conceptual 
guilt  render  Christ  guilty,  or  constitute  in  him  a  just  ground  of 
punishment  ?  It  were  as  easy  to  transform  a  cube  into  a  globe  by 
imputing  sphericity  to  it.  But  is  not  guilt  a  reality  ?  Certainly, 
and  a  terrible  one  ;  but  only  as  a  concrete  fact  of  sin.  And  with 
the  imputation  of  such  an  abstract  guilt  to  Christ,  while  sin,  with 
its  turpitude  and  demerit,  with  all  that  is  punishable  and  all  that 
deserves  to  be  punished  left  behind,  how  can  the  redemptive  suffer- 
ing which  he  endured  be  the  merited  punishment  of  sin? 

4.  JVo  such  Answer  Possible. — Guilt  cannot  exist  apart  from  sin. 
It  is  impossible  by  the  very  definition  of  it  as  the  obligation  of  sin 
to  the  retribution  of  justice.  The  necessary  conjunction  of  facts  is 
obvious.  On  the  one  side  is  justice,  with  it  j)recept  and  penalty  ; 
on  the  other,  sin ;  hence,  guilt.  There  is  guilt,  because  justice 
asserts  a  penal  claim  upon  sin.  The  demerit  of  sin,  the  intrinsic 
evil  of  sin,  is  the  only  ground  of  such  a  claim.  Nothing  but  sin 
can  be  guilty,  or  render  any  one  guilty.  And  there  can  no  more 
be  guilt  apart  from  sin  than  there  can  be  extension  without  either 
substance  or  space.  It  is  not  in  itself  punishable,  but  simply  the 
punitive  amenability  of  sin  to  justice.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  so 
put  upon  Christ  as  to  render  him  punishable,  unless  the  very  sin  is 
put  upon  him.     But  this  is  conceded  to  be  impossible. 

Indeed,  sin  itself  is  a  punishable  reality  only  as  a  personal  fact. 
In  the  last  analysis  only  a  person,  only  a  sinful  person,  sin  as  punish- 
is  punishable.  It  is  not  any  impersonal  sin,  or  sin  in  ^^''^• 
generalized  conception,  but  only  a  sinful  person,  that  is  answerable 
to  justice  in  penalty.  Sin  has  no  real  existence  apart  from  the 
agent  in  the  sinning.  The  guilt  of  sin  lies  upon  him,  and  can  no 
more  be  put  upon  a  substitute  as  a  punitive  desert  than  his  sinful 
act  can  cease  to  be  his  and  be  made  the  sinful  act  of  such  substi- 
tute. 

But  the  principles  of  the  satisfaction  scheme  still  remain,  with 
the  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin  according  to  its  demerit. 


148  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

and  on  that  ground.  So  imperative  is  this  obligation,  that  any 
SIN  NOT  PUN-  omission  of  such  punishment  would  be  an  injustice  in 
isHED.  God.     With  this  the  very  masters  in  the  theory  fully 

agree.  Indeed,  there  is  no  dissent.  Is  sin  so  punished  in  Christ  ? 
It  is  not,  even  if  we  admit  the  separability  of  guilt  and  its  transfer- 
ence to  Christ.  Guilt  is  not  sin.  The  theory  itself  carefully  dis- 
criminates the  two.  Such  is  its  necessity,  as  it  denies  the  transfer- 
ability of  sin.  For,  otherwise,  it  has  nothing  which  it  may  even 
claim  to  be  transferred  as  the  ground  of  merited  punishment.  By 
the  alleged  facts  of  the  theory  no  penalty  is  inflicted  upon  sin. 
Yet  its  punishment  is  the  asserted  absolute  requirement  of  moral 
rectitude  in  divine  justice.  The  conclusion  is  most  certain  that  the 
penal  substitution  which  the  theory  of  satisfaction  holds  can  give  no 
answer  to  the  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin  which  it  asserts. 

5.  The  Theory/  Self -destructive. — The  necessary  punishment  of 
sin  and  the  nature  of  penal  substitution,  which  the  theory  main- 
tains and  seeks  to  combine  in  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  absolutely 
refuse  all  scientific  fellowship.  Yet  the  theory  can  neither  dispense 
with  the  one  nor  so  modify  the  other  as  to  agree  with  it.  The  former 
is  its  very  ground-principle,  and  therefore  cannot  be  dispensed 
with.  The  necessary  modification  of  the  latter,  in  order  to  a  scien- 
tific agreement  with  the  former,  would  require  a  transference  of  the 
FATAL  DiLEM-  turpltudc  aud  demerit  of  sin  to  Christ  ;  therefore,  such 
"^*  modification  must  be  rejected.     Consequently,  whether 

there  be  or  be  not  an  absolute  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin, 
the  theory  of  satisfaction  is  self-destructive.  For,  with  such  a  neces- 
sity, not  only  does  the  penal  substitution  maintained  utterly  fail  to 
answer  to  its  imperative  requirement,  but  no  possible  substitution 
can  so  answer.  But  without  such  a  necessity  for  the  punishment 
of  sin  the  theory  is  utterly  groundless.  Therefore,  whether  there 
be  or  be  not  the  asserted  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin^  the 
theory  is  self-destroyed. 

VI.  Facts  of  the  Theory  in  Objection^. 

Much  has  been  anticipated  which  might  have  been  arranged 
under  objections.  Yet  much  remains,  but  requiring  only  a  brief 
treatment  in  view  of  previoiis  discussions. 

1.  The  Punishment  of  Christ. — It  is  a  weighty  objection  to  the 
theory  under  review  that  it  makes  the  punishment  of  Christ  neces- 
sary to  atonement.  The  punishment  is  in  satisfaction  of  justice. 
Its  desert  in  .him  is  imputed  sin.  Justice  must  punish  sin:  there- 
fore it  must  punish  sin  in  Christ  as  a  substitute  in  atonement. 
There  is  no  other  possible  atonement. 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  140 

But  the  imputation  of  sin  has  insuperable  difficulties.  This  is 
especially  true  of  its  imputation  to  Christ.  Such  is  the  confession 
in  the  caution  which  discriminates  between  sin  and  imputation 
guilt,  and  admits  only  the  latter  in  imputation.  It  ^^  ^'•'*- 
shocks  our  moral  reason  to  think  of  Christ  as  a  sinner  even  by  im- 
putation. Yet  such  imputation  is  a  nullity  for  all  purposes  of  this 
theory,  unless  it  makes  our  sins  in  some  real  sense  his.  For  other- 
wise there  can  be  no  pretense  even  of  their  merited  punishment  iu 
him.  If  the  imputation  of  sin  is  in  order  to  its  just  punishment, 
and  sufficient  for  that  end,  really  the  view  of  Luther  is  none  too 
strong :  ''  For  Christ  is  innocent  as  concerning  his  own  person, 
and  therefore  he  ought  not  to  have  been  hanged  upon  a  tree;  but 
because,  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  every  thief  and  malefactor 
ought  to  be  hanged,  therefore  Christ  also,  according  to  the  law, 
ought  to  be  hanged;  for  he  sustained  the  person  of  a  sinner  and  of 
a  thief — not  of  one,  but  of  all  sinners  and  thieves."'  There  is  much 
more  such,  and  some  even  worse.  Others  maintain  a  like  position, 
if  not  with  the  same  boldness  of  utterance.  It  is  only  through  such 
an  imputation  that  justice  could  fulfill,  by  substitution,  its  asserted 
absolute  obligation  to  punish  sin  according  to  its  demerit. 

Such  implication  is  not  avoided  by  the  assumption  of  an  impu- 
tation merely  of  guilt.  It  is  still  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  renders 
Christ  guilty  in  a  sense  that  he  may  be  justly  punished.  g^jLT  and 
Nor  are  we  confounding  the  discriminated  reatus  demerit. 
culpm  and  reatus  poenm  of  theologians ;  though  the  distinction  is 
useless  for  the  purpose  of  finding  a  guilt  that  may  exist  and  be 
punished  apart  from  sin,  and  especially  with  the  notion  that  sin  is 
thereby  punished.  The  guilt  which  answers  to  justice  in  penalty 
is  the  guilt  of  sin.  If  Christ  so  answered  as  a  substitute  for  the 
elect,  he  must  have  been  guilty  of  all  their  sins.  Hence  the  theory 
under  review  should  neither  discard  the  bold  utterances  of  Luther 
nor  seek  shelter  under  an  utterly  futile  distinction  between  sin  and 
guilt.  On  any  consistent  supposition  it  must  hold  Christ  as  guilty 
of  all  the  sins  which  suffered  their  merited  punishment  in  him. 
But  he  never  could  be  so  guilty  :  hence  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
which  implies  and  requires  such  a  fact  cannot  be  the  true  doctrine. 

2.  Redeemed  Sinners  Witliout  Guilt. — The  atonement  of  satis- 
faction has  this  logical  implication,  that  all  for  whom  it  is  made 
are  without  guilt.  Such  an  atonement  is,  by  its  very  nature,  a 
discharge  from  all  amenability  to  the  penalty  of  justice.  Explicit 
statements  of  its  leading  advocates  are  in  full  accord  with  this  posi- 
tion.    Nor  has  such  a  consequence  any  avoidance  by  any  real  dis- 

'  Commentary  on  Golatians,  chap,  iii,  13. 


150  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

tiuctiou  between  mei'itum  culpce  and  meritum  poence.  In  any  real- 
ity of  such  distinction  there  may  be  personal  demerit  without  legal 
guilt ;  though  we  have  denied,  and  do  deny,  to  the  theory  under 
review,  the  truth  of  the  converse,  that  there  may  be  such  guilt  with- 
out such  demerit.  But  here  we  raise  no  question  whether  sinners, 
simply  as  redeemed,  are  still  in  a  state  of  personal  demerit.  Our 
position  respects  guilt  as  the  amenability  of  sin  to  the  penalties  of 
justice,  and  asserts  that,  according  to  the  atonement  of  satisfaction, 
the  elect  for  whom  it  is  made  are,  in  their  whole  life,  and  however 
wicked,  entirely  free  from  such  guilt.  There  is  for  them  neither 
judicial  condemnation  nor  liability  to  punishment.  The  penalties 
of  justice,  impending  in  the  divine  threatenings,  have  no  immi- 
nence for  them. 

The  scheme  ever  asserts  an  absolute  necessity  for  the  punishment 
of  sin.  It  equally  asserts  such  a  penal  substitution  of  Christ  in 
THE  PENAL  ^^^^  placc  of  tlic  clcct  as  fully  satisfies  the  penal  claim 
SUBSTITUTION,  of  justlcc  agalust  them.  Thus  justice  fulfilled  its  own 
retributive  obligation  in  the  punishment  of  sin,  just  as  though  it 
had  inflicted  the  merited  penalty  upon  them.  God  has  accepted 
the  penal  substitution  for  their  own  punishment.  All  is  in  strict 
accord  with  a  covenant  agreement  between  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
as  the  theory  asserts.  Now  such  an  atonement,  by  its  very  nature, 
cancels  all  punitive  claim  against  the  elect,  and  by  immediate  result 
forever  frees  them  from  all  guilt  as  a  liability  to  the  penalty  of  sin. 
We  know  that  such  a  consequence  is  denied,  though  we  shall  show 
that  it  is  also  fully  asserted. 

It  is  attempted  to  obviate  this  consequence   by  a  distinction 

between  a  pecuniary  and  a  penal  obligation:  *' Another  important 

difference  between  pecuniary  and  penal  satisfaction  is 

PECDNIART  ,  ^  ''  rm 

AND  PENAL  that  thc  ouc  ipso  facto  liberates.  The  moment  the 
SATISFACTION.    ^^^^  jg  ^^j^  ^^^  dcbtor  is  free,  and  that  completely. 

Xo  delay  can  be  admitted,  and  no  conditions  can  be  attached  to 
his  deliverance.  But  in  the  case  of  a  criminal,  as  he  has  no  claim 
to  have  a  substitute  take  his  place,  if  one  be  provided,  the  terms  on 
which  the  benefits  of  his  substitution  shall  accrue  to  the  principal 
fire  matters  of  agreement  or  covenant  between  the  substitute  and  the 
magistrate  who  represents  justice. " '  Such  a  distinction  will  not  ac- 
cord with  the  penal  substitution  of  Christ.  The  ground-principle  of 
the  doctrine  is,  that  sin  must  be  punished  according  to  its  demerit, 
and  on  that  ground ;  must  be,  because  of  an  immutable  obligation 
of  justice  so  to  punish  it.  Then  by  the  penal  substitution  of  Christ 
sin  is  so  punished  in  him,  and  the  obligation  of  justice  fulfilled. 
•Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  470,  471. 


I 


AUTHORITIES. 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  151 

Such  are  the  facts  of  the  doctrine.  On  the  ground  of  such  facts, 
a  discharge  must  immediately  follow  upon  such  penal  substitution, 
just  as  on  the  payment  of  a  debt. 

So  Dr.  Hodge  gives  the  facts  in  less  than  two  pages  in  advance 
of  the  previous  citation.  "  If  the  claims  of  justice  are  satisfied 
they  cannot  be  again  enforced.  This  is  the  analogy  result  the 
between  the  work  of  Christ  and  the  payment  of  a  debt,  s^^^^- 
The  point  of  agreement  between  the  two  cases  is  not  the  nature  of 
the  satisfaction  rendered,  but  one  aspect  of  the  effect  produced.  In 
botli  cases  the  persons  for  whom  the  satisfaction  is  made  are  cer- 
tainly freed.  Their  exemption  or  deliverance  is  in  both  cases,  and 
equally  in  both,  a  matter  of  justice. ''^  We  shall  attempt  no  im- 
provement here  ;  for  we  can  give  neither  a  better  statement  of  the 
fact  in  the  case  nor  a  better  reply  to  the  citation  made  just  before 
from  the  same  author. 

We  may  add  a  few  authorities.  "Will  God  punish  sin  twice, 
first  in  the  person  of  the  Surety,  and  then  in  the  persons  them- 
selves, in  whose  place  he  stood  ?  It  will  be  acknowl- 
edged, without  a  dissenting  voice,  that  in  any  other 
case  this  would  be  a  manifest  injustice.  But  '  is  there  unrighteous- 
ness with  God?  God  forbid  :  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do 
right.''"*  "The  death  of  Christ  being  a  legal  satisfaction  for  sin, 
all  for  whom  he  died  must  enjoy  the  remission  of  their  offenses.  It 
is  as  much  at  variance  with  strict  justice  or  equity  that  any  for 
whom  Christ  has  given  satisfaction  should  continue  under  condem- 
nation, as  that  they  should  have  been  delivered  from  ginlt  without 
any  satisfaction  being  given  for  them  at  all."'  A  satisfactionist 
could  hardly  put  the  case  more  strongly.  "For  if,  in  consequence 
of  his  suretyship,  the  debt  has  been  transferred  to  Christ  and  by 
h.im  discharged,  every  one  must  see  that  it  has  been  taken  away 
from  the  primary  debtors,  so  that  payment  cannot  be  demanded 
of  them.  They  must  forever  afterward  remain  free,  absolved  from 
all  obligation  to  punishment."* 

Such  authorities  may  suffice  for  our  position.  Indeed,  we  did 
not  really  need  any,  as  such  freedom  from  guilt  is  the  inevitable 
consequence  of  an  atonement  by  penal  substitution.  But  such 
moral  support  should  silence  all  cavil. 

The  position  is  sometimes  taken  that,  in  a  penal  satisfaction, 
the  actual  forgiveness  is  subject  to  such  time  and  conditions  as  the 

'  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  472.      See  also  pp.  482,  487,  494. 

-  Dick  :   Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  556. 

^  Symington  :   Atonement  and  Intercession,  p.  190. 

*  Tiirrettin  :   The  Atonement  of  Christ,  p.  146. 


152  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

sovereign  authority  may  determine.  It  cannot  be  maintained. 
THE  RESULT  Othei'wise,  all  the  reasonings  in  the  above  citations, 
ABSOLUTE.  and  given  from  the  very  masters  in  this  doctrine,  are  fal- 
lacious. It  is  overthrown  by  the  analogy  of  result  between  a  pecu- 
niary and  a  penal  satisfaction.  In  the  latter  case,  as  in  the  former, 
the  claim  of  the  obligee  is  fully  satisfied,  and  the  discharge  of  the 
pai'ty  in  obligation  must  immediately  issue.  The  case  can  admit 
no  delay  and  no  conditions  for  the  discharge.  And  no  sin  of  the  re- 
deemed, once  justly  punished  in  Christ  as  an  accepted  substitute, 
can  for  an  instant  be  answerable  to  justice  in  penalty,  or  in  any 
sense  be  liable  to  punishment.     The  redeemed  are  without  guilt. 

Is  such  a  position  in  accord  with  the  real  fact  in  the  case?  Sin 
REALITY  OF  IS  siu,  wheuevcr  and  by  whomsoever  committed.  As 
GUILT.  such  it  has  legal  guilt  as  well  as  personal  demerit.     It 

is  under  judicial  condemnation,  and  in  peril  of  retribution.  Such 
facts  are  in  full  accord  with  a  common  experience  of  souls  in  com- 
ing into  the  spiritual  life.  In  such  an  exj^erience  there  is  more 
than  a  deep  sense  of  personal  demerit ;  there  is  also  a  deep  sense  of 
peril  in  the  apprehension  of  divine  penalty.  Many  a  soul  just  on 
the  verge  of  the  new  life  is  full  of  trembling  in  this  apprehension. 
Beally,  there  is  no  cause,  if  the  true  doctrine  of  atonement  is  in  the 
just  punishment  of  sin  by  substitution.  But  there  is  cause  in  every 
such  case,  and  for  the  reason  of  guilt  and  judicial  condemnation. 
The  trembling  apprehension  is  the  recognition  of  a  terrible  real- 
ity. Among  the  eminent  for  piety,  and,  therefore,  certainly  of  the 
elect  and  redeemed,  are  some  who  once  were  very  wicked.  Were 
they  then  without  guilt  or  judicial  condemnation  ?  Was  there  for 
them  no  imminence  of  penal  retribution  ?  Was  it  so  with  Paul,  and 
Augustine,  and  John  Xewton,  and  many  others  such  ?  If  so,  there 
was  a  deep  deception  in  their  profoundest  religious  consciousness. 
And  such  a  mistake  is  ever  arising  under  the  immediate  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  conviction  for  sin.  As  under  his  revealing  light  and 
convincing  power  the  soul  awakes,  it  not  only  feels  within  the  deep 
evil  of  sin,  but  ever  sees  without  the  threatening  penalty  of  divine 
justice.     And  there  is  no  delusion  in  such  cases. 

And  what  of  the  divine  threatenings  against  all  sin  and  all  sin- 
FURTHER  ners  ?    Have  they  no  meaning  for  the  redeemed  ?     Or 

PROOFS.  are  they  like  the  overtures  of  grace  which  a  limited 

atonement  freely  makes  to  all,  but  with  real  meaning  for  only  the 
elect  and  redeemed  part  ?  On  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  such 
divine  threatenings  signal  no  imminence  of  divine  wrath  for  the  re- 
deemed. And  what  of  all  the  Scripture  terms  of  forgiveness  and 
remission  of  sins  ?    Have  they  no  meaning  of  an  actual  discharge 


THEORY  OF  SATISFACTION.  153 

from  guilt  and  penalty  in  the  hour  of  an  actual  salvation  ?  Or  is 
their  full  meaning  given  simply  in  the  declaration  of  a  discharge  long 
before  actually  achieved  through  penal  substitution  ?  When  Jesus 
said,  aa  often  to  one  or  another,  "  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,"  was 
it  no  actual  forgiveness  then  granted  ?  Without  such  a  forgiveness, 
there  is  no  pertinence  in  the  proof  which  he  gave  of  a  "  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sins."'  A  doctrine  of  atonement  encountering 
such  facts  as  we  have  given,  and  facts  so  decisive  against  it,  cannot 
be  the  true  doctrine. 

3.  A  Limited  Afonetnenf. — The  theory  has  this  consequence,  and 
avows  it.  Such  an  atonement  is  in  its  own  nature  saving.  The 
salvation  of  all  whom  Christ  represents  in  his  mediatorial  work  must 
issue.  "  The  advocates  of  a  limited  atonement  reason  from  the  effect 
to  the  cause."*  Dr.  SchafE  is  entirely  correct  in  this,  as  might  be 
shown  by  many  examples.  Xor  is  there  a  contrary  instance.  But 
the  reasoning  is  logically  valid  for  a  limited  atonement  only  on  the 
ground  that  such  an  atonement  is  necessarily  saving.  For  thus  only 
is  the  fact  of  a  limited  actual  salvation  conclusive  of  a  limited 
atonement.  Hence  Calvinistic  divines  who  hold  a  general  atone- 
ment consistently  reject  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction. 

But  the  full  force  of  this  objection  to  the  satisfaction  theory 
cannot  be  given  here.  It  lies  in  the  Scripture  fact  of  universality 
in  the  atonement,  which  will  be  treated  in  its  place.  For  the  pres- 
ent we  name  it  as  fatal  to  the  theory  of  satisfaction.  If,  in  the 
divine  destination,  the  atonement  is  really  for  all,  as  we  shall  prove 
it  to  be,  then  this  theory  cannot  be  the  true  one. 

4.  Element  of  Commutative  Justice. — The  theory  is  complicated 
with  commutative  justice.  We  know  well  the  vigorous  denial.  But 
denial  does  not  void  a  logical  implication.  Commutative  justice 
has  its  principle  as  well  as  its  usual  commodities.  In  any  obligation 
the  principle  claims  the  sum  due,  either  in  the  identical  thing 
or  in  its  equivalent  in  value.  One  or  the  other  it  must  have.  It 
freely  admits  substitution.  A  surety  or  proxy  may  satisfy  the  claim 
as  well  as  the  debtor  himself.  One  thing  may  be  accepted  in  the 
stead  of  another,  if  its  equivalent  in  value. 

Such  is  the  principle,  and  such  are  the  characteristic  facts,  in  the 
doctrine  of  satisfaction.  Justice  requires  the  punish-  s^j„  prisci- 
ment  of  sin  as  a  rightful  claim.  It  will  accept  a  substi-  ^^• 
tute  in  penalty,  and  also  a  less  punishment,  if  of  such  higher  qual- 
ity as  to  be  of  equal  value.  Thus  in  principle  and  characteristic  facts 
it  is  at  one  with  commutative  justice.  The  actual  and  necessary 
discharge  of  the  redeemed  from  all  amenability  to  the  penalty  of 

'Matt,  ix,  6.  *Schaff  :  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  i,  p.  521. 

12  • 


154  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

justice,  on  account  of  the  satisfaction  of  its  claim  by  penal  substi- 
tute, is  a  legitimate  consequence  of  the  same  principle.  Nor  is 
there  any  avoidance  of  such  complication  by  an  alleged  difference 
between  a  pecuniary  and  a  penal  claim — one  on  the  property  of  the 
debtor,  and  the  other  on  his  person.  Both  are  personal  to  the 
debtor — one  for  satisfaction  in  his  property,  and  the  other  for  satis- 
faction in  his  punishment.  The  likeness  still  remains.  There  is  a 
oneness  of  the  two.  The  theory  is  seriously  complicated  with  com- 
mutative justice. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  loo 


CHAPTEK  VII. 

GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY. 

This  theory  also  has  already  come  into  view  more  than  once. 
But  it  is  proper  to  treat  it  more  directly  and  fully  as  we  have  the 
other  leading  theories.  Yet  the  discussion  will  require  the  less 
elaboration,  as  many  of  the  principles  and  facts  appertaining  to  the 
theory  have  been  more  or  less  considered.  It  mainly  concerns  us 
now  to  bring  them  together,  and  to  set  them  in  the  order  of  a  projier 
method  and  in  the  light  of  a  more  exact  and  definitive  statement. 

We  have  indicated  our  acceptance  of  this  theory  as  the  true  the- 
ory of  atonement.  But  we  so  accept  it  in  what  it  really  is,  and  not 
in  any  particular  exposition  of  it  as  hitherto  given.  It  has  not 
always  been  fortunate  in  its  exposition.  It  was  not  entirely  so  in 
the  beginning.  Its  cardinal  principles  have  been  clearly  enough 
given  ;  and  with  these  in  hand,  a  true  construction  of  the  doctrine 
should  follow.  Such,  however,  has  not  always  been  the  case.  The 
treatment  has  often  been  deficient  in  analysis  or  scientific  method. 
Alien  elements  have  been  retained  ;  vital  facts  omitted  or  wrongly 
placed.  We  hold  the  doctrine  as  we  shall  construct  and  maintain 
it.  As  such  it  is  the  doctrine  of  a  real  and  necessary  atonement  in 
Christ. 

I.  Preliminary  Facts. 

The  discussion  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  as  represented  in 
the  governmental  theory,  will  run  through  this  chapter  and  the 
next.  It  will  also  be  involved  in  the  last  one — universality  of  the 
atonement.  The  question  of  its  extent  is  more  than  a  question  of 
facts ;  it  concerns  the  doctrine  also.  With  this  satisfactionists  fully 
agree.  And  the  next  chapter,  while  given  to  the  elements  of  suffi- 
ciency in  the  redemptive  mediation  of  Christ,  treats  them  in  view 
of  the  principles  of  atonement,  and  thus  involves  its  nature. 

1.  Suhsiitutional  Atonement. — The  sufferings  of  Christ  are  an 
atonement  for  sin  by  substitution,  in  the  sense  that  they  were  in- 
tentionally endured  for  sinners  under  judicial  condemnation,  and 
for  the  sake  of  their  forgiveness.  They  render  forgiveness  consist- 
ent with  the  divine  justice,  in  that  justice  none  the  less  fulfills  its 
rectoral  office  in  the  interest  of  moral  government.  The  honor  and 
authority  of  the  divine  Ruler,  together  with  the  rights  and  interests 


156  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  his  subjects,  are  as  fully  maintained  as  they  could  be  by  the  in- 
fliction of  merited  penalty  upon  sin. 

2.  Conditional  Substitution. — The  forgiveness  of  sin  has  a  real 
conditionality.  The  fact  is  given  in  the  clearest  utterances  of 
Scripture.  It  is  also  given  as  the  only  explanation  of  the  fact  that, 
with  a  real  atonement  for  all,  some  perish.  An  atonement  for  all 
by  absolute  substitution  would  inevitably  achieve  the  salvation  of 
all.  Therefore  a  universal  atonement,  with  the  fact  of  a  limited 
actual  salvation,  is  conclusive  of  a  real  conditionality  in  its  saving 
grace.  It  follows,  inevitably,  that  such  an  atonement  is  provisory, 
not  immediately  and  necessarily  saving. 

3.  Substitution  in  Suffering. — The  substitution  of  Christ  must  be 
of  a  nature  agreeing  with  the  provisory  character  of  the  atonement. 
It  could  not,  therefore,  be  a  substitution  in  penalty  as  the  merited 
punishment  of  sin,  for  such  an  atonement  is  absolute.  The  substi- 
tution, therefore,  is  in  suffering,  without  the  penal  element.  This 
agrees  with  the  nature  of  the  atonement  as  a  moral  support  of  jus- 
tice in  its  rectoral  office,  thus  rendering  forgiveness  consistent  with 
the  interest  of  moral  government. 

Nor  have  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ,  without  the  penal 
NO  LESS  element,  less  value  for  any  legitimate  purpose  or  attain- 

VALCE.  •  able  end  of  substitutional  atonement.  Such  an  atone- 
ment has  great  ends  in  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  holiness, 
justice,  and  love ;  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  certainty  of  penalty, 
except  as  forgiveness  may  be  obtained  in  the  grace  of  redemption. 
But  for  all  such  ends  the  theory  of  vicarious  punishment  has  no  ad- 
vantage above  that  of  vicarious  suffering. 

The  punishment  of  sin  does  manifest  the  divine  holiness  and  jus- 
tice. But  this  fact  gives  no  advantage  to  the  scheme  of  substitu- 
tional punishment ;  and  for  the  reason  that  sin  is  not  punished  in 
Christ.  If  he  is  punished,  it  is  in  absolute  freedom  from  all  de- 
merit of  sin.  And  the  recoil  of  so  many  minds  from  such  a  fact, 
as  one  of  injustice,  is  not  without  reason. 

f  Punishment  does  declare  the  evil  of  sin,  but  only  as  it  falls  upon  the 
demerit  of  sin.  But  here,  again,  the  scheme  of  satisfaction  is  denied 
all  advantage,  because,  according  to  its  own  admissions,  such  is  not 
the  fact  in  the  substitution  of  Christ.  And  the  substitution  in  suffer- 
ing, as  the  only  and  necessary  ground  of  forgiveness,  will  answer  for 
such  declaration  as  fully  as  the  alleged  substitution  in  punishment. 

A  ground  of  forgiveness  provided  in  a  divine  sacrifice  infinitely 
SAME  sACRi-  great  is  a  marvelous  manifestation  of  the  divine  love  ; 
^'^^^-  but  that  sacrifice,  in  every  admissible  or  possible   ele- 

ment, is  as  great  in  the  mode  of  vicarious  suffering  as  in  that  of  vica- 


GOVERNMENTAL  TIIEOHV.  157 

rious  puuishment.  Tlie  gift  of  the  Father  is  the  same.  Nor  are  the 
sufferings  of  the  Son  less,  or  other,  in  any  possible  element.  In 
neither  case  could  there  be  any  remorse  or  sense  of  personal  demerit. 
He  could  have  no  sense  of  the  divine  wrath  against  himself.  Nor 
could  there  be  such  a  divine  wrath.  The  doctrine  of  satisfaction 
will  so  deny.  It  would  repel  any  accusation  that  even  by  implication 
it  attributes  to  the  Father  any  wrathful  bearing  toward  the  Son. , 
•'  Christ  was  at  no  time  the  object  of  his  Father's  personal  displeas- 
ure, but  suffered  only  the  signs — the  effect,  not  the  aff'ection — of 
divine  anger."  '  The  incarnation,  the  self -divestment  of  a  rightful 
glory  in  equality  with  the  Father,  the  assumption,  instead,  of  the 
form  of  a  servant  in  the  likeness  of  men,  are  all  the  same  on  the  one 
theory  as  on  the  other.  There  is  the  same  infinite  depth  of  conde-") 
scension.  Equal  sorrow  and  agony  force  the  earnest  prayer  and 
bloody  sweat  in  Gethsemane,  and  the  bitter  outcry  on  Calvary. 

Any  question,  therefore,  between  these  two  theories  respecting 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  concerns  their  nature,  and  not 
either  their  measure  or  redemptive  office.  And  in  these 
facts — in  the  divine  compassion  which  embraced  a  perishing  world, 
in  the  infinite  sacrifice  of  that  compassion,  in  the  gracious  purpose 
and  provision  of  that  sacrifice — is  the  manifestation  of  the  divine 
love.  *'  Herein  is  love."  "  God  so  loved  the  world."  And  to  call 
his  sufferings  penal — or  had  they  been  so  in  fact — would  add  noth- 
ing either  to  the  measure  or  manifestion  of  the  divine  love  in  hu- 
man redemption. 

Yet,  without  the  penal  element  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  we 
may  attribute  to  them  a  peculiar  depth  and  cast  arising  peculiar  cast 
out  of  their  relation  to  sin  in  their  redemptive  office,  ^^  suffering. 
and  find  the  explanation  in  the  facts  of  psychology.  It  is  no  pre- 
sumption so  to  apply  such  fact.  The  human  nature  was  present  as 
a  constituent  element  in  the  person  of  Christ.  And  there  is  no  more 
reason  to  deny  its  influence  upon  his  consciousness  than  to  deny 
such  influence  to  his  divine  nature.  So  far,  therefore,  as  his  con- 
sciousness shared  in  experiences  through  the  human  nature,  they 
would  be  kindred  to  our  own. 

We  have  our  own  experiences  in  the  clear  apprehension  of  Jus- 
tice, and  sin,  and  penalty.  The  feelings  hence  arising  would  be  far 
deeper  on  hearing  a  verdict  of  guilt  and  a  judgment  pronounced 
upon  the  criminal.  The  higher  and  purer  our  spiritual  nature, 
still  the  deeper  would  these  feelings  be.  And  could  one  with  the 
highest  attainable  moral  perfection  redeem  a  criminal  simply  by 
vicarious  suffering,  his  inevitable  contact  with  sin  in  the  realiza- 
'  Bruce  :  The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  p.  338. 


158  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

tions  of  a  most  vivid  apprehension  of  its  demerit  and  punishment 
would  give  a  peculiar  cast  and  depth  to  his  sufferings. 

So  was  it  in  the  redemptive  sufferings  of  Christ,  but  in  an  in- 
finitely deeper  sense.  In  such  redemption  he  must  have  had  in 
clearest  view  the  divine  holiness,  and  justice,  and  wrath;  the  turpi- 
tude and  demerit  of  sin,  and  the  terribleness  of  its  merited  penalty. 
Only  in  such  a  view  could  he  comprehend  his  own  work  or  sacrifice 
in  atonement  for  sin.  And,  remembering  the  moral  perfection  of 
his  nature,  and  that  his  contact  was  with  the  sins  of  all  men  in  the 
full  apprehension  of  their  demerit,  of  the  divine  wrath  against 
them,  of  the  terribleness  of  their  just  doom,  and  that  his  own  blood 
and  life,  in  the  conscious  purpose  of  their  offering,  were  a  sacrifice 
in  atonement  for  all,  we  have  reason  enough  for  their  peculiar  cast 
and  awful  depth. 

It  is  urged  that  penal  substitution  is  necessary,  not  only  for  the 
satisfaction  of  justice,  but  also  "  for  satisfying  the  demands  of  a 
SATISFACTION  guHty  conscicncc,  which  mere  pardon  never  can  ap- 
OF  CONSCIENCE,  peasc.^*  *  Tlic  connection  of  this  citation  holds  the 
rectoral  atonement  to  be  as  powerless  as  the  moral  for  the  content- 
ment of  conscience.  It  cannot  have  rest,  except  with  the  merited 
punishment  of  sin ;  therefore,  in  the  case  of  forgiveness,  such 
2:)unishment  must  be  endured  by  a  substitute. 

We  fully  accept  the  fact  of  a  deep  sense  of  punitive  demerit  on 
account  of  sin  in  a  truly  awakened  conscience.  This  feeling  may 
be  so  strong  as  to  result  in  a  desire  for  punishment.  There  may 
even  be  some  relief  of  conscience  from  the  penal  endurance.  But 
such  a  feeling  has  respect  simply  to  personal  demerit,  and  can  be 
appeased  only  through  personal  punishment — if  punishment  be 
really  necessary  to  the  appeasement. 

What  is  the  law  of  pacification  in  substitutional  punishment? 
We  know  not  any ;  nor  can  there  be  any,  except  such  punish- 
ment be  in  relief  of  personal  character.  But  this  will  not  be 
claimed  as  possible.  Further,  it  is  claimed  in  behalf  of  atonement 
by  penal  substitution,  that,  more  than  any  thing  else,  it  deepens 
the  sense  of  sin  and  personal  demerit.  But  if  its  tendency  is  to  the 
very  state  of  mind  involving  the  deepest  unrest,  it  is  impossible  to 
see  how  it  can  be  necessary  to  the  pacification  of  the  conscience. 
And  if  we  can  find  rest  only  through  merited  punishment,  personal 
or  vicarious,  we  shall  never  find  it  either  in  this  world  or  in  the  next. 

All  relief  from  the  trouble  and  disquietude  arising  in  the  sense  of 
sin  and  guilt  must  come  in  the  forgiveness  of  sin.     And  to  be  com- 

'  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  526.  See  also  Shedd  :  Theological 
Essays,  pp.  298,  299. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  159 

plete,  the  forgiveness  must  be  so  full  and  gracious  as  to  draw  the 
soul  into  a  restful  assurance  of  the  loving  favor  of  the  only  law  of 
forgiving  Father.  It  is  no  discredit  to  infinite  grace  '*'^^'^- 
to  say  that  the  sense  of  demerit  for  sins  committed  can  never  be 
eradicated,  not  even  in  heaven;  though  the  remorse  of  sin  may  be 
taken  away  here  and  now.  But  even  such  a  sense  of  demerit  tends 
to  a  measure  of  unrest  forever,  and,  apart  from  every  other  law, 
would  so  result.  There  is  still  a  law  of  complete  rest — such  as  we 
have  just  given.  The  true  rest  will  come  in  a  full  forgiveness,  in 
the  assurances  of  the  divine  friendship  and  love,  and  in  a  grateful, 
joyous  love  answering  to  the  infinite  grace  of  salvation.  In  many 
a  happy  experience  there  is  already  the  beginning  of  this  rest. 
And  the  atonement  in  vicarious  suffering  answers  for  such  facts  as 
fully  as  that  in  penal  substitution. 

Nor  has  the  atonement  in  vicarious  suffering  any  tendency  or 
liability  to  Antinomianism.  From  its  own  nature  it  is  a  provisory 
or  conditional  ground,  not  a  causal  ground  of  forgive-  antinomian- 
ness  and  salvation.  From  such  an  atonement  no  ism  excluded. 
license  to  sin  can  be  taken.  Antinomianism  is  utterly  outlawed. 
We  know  very  well  that  satisfactionists  very  generally  discard  this 
heresy.  They  will  deny  that  it  has  any  logical  connection  with  their 
theory.  Yet  in  the  history  of  doctrines  Antinomianism  stands  mostly  , 
Avith  this  soteriology.  Nor  does  it  seem  remote  from  a  logical  con-' 
sequence  to  such  an  atonement.  There  is  substituted  punishment, 
and  also  substituted  righteousness.  Whatever  penalty  we  deserve 
Christ  bears  ;  whatever  obedience  we  lack  he  fulfills.  He  takes 
our  place  under  both  penalty  and  precept.  What  he  does  and  suffers 
in  our  stead  answer  for  us  in  the  requirements  of  justice  and  law  just 
as  though  personally  our  own.  In  view  of  such  facts,  Antinomianism 
is  far  worse  in  its  doctrine  than  in  its  logic.  But  the  atonement  in 
Christ  does  not  make  void  the  law.  Nor  has  the  true  doctrine  any 
liability  to  such  a  perversion.  The  atonement  in  vicarious  suffering 
has  this  advantage,  and  is  thereby  commended  as  the  true  one. 

4.  TJie  Grotian  Theory. — The  theory  of  atonement  now  under 
discussion  is  often  called  the  Edwardean,  and  also  the  New  England, 
theory.  It  has  the  former  title  from  the  younger  Edwards,  who 
contributed  much,  and  among  the  first,  to  its  American  formation. 
Some  find,  or  think  they  find,  its  seed-thoughts  in  the  writings  of 
the  elder  Edwards,  and  hence  so  style  it.  But  satisfactionists  deny 
this  source,  and  earnestly  disclaim  for  him  all  responsibility  for  the 
doctrine.^  It  is  called  the  New  England  theory  because  specially 
elaborated  by  leading  New  England  divinec'     But  priority  and  the 

'  Smeaton:  The  Apostles'  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  p.  536. 


160  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

true  originality  are  with  Grotius.  Nor  can  we  accord  to  these  very 
learned  and  able  divines  an  independent  origination  of  the  doctrine. 
They  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the  work  of  Grotius,  nor  that 
in  the  deeper  principles  they  were  at  one  with  him.  With  differ- 
ences respecting  many  points,  there  is  yet  such  an  agreement.' 

By  common  consent,  and  quite  irrespective  of  all  dissent  from 
liim  in  doctrine,  Grotius  was  a  man  of  very  extraordinary  ability 
and  learned  attainment.  The  literary  achievements  of 
his  youth  are  a  wonder  f  nor  did  his  mature  life  fal- 
sify the  promise  of  such  marvelous  precocity.  His  great  abilities 
and  vast  learning  gave  him  eminence  in  science,  in  philosophy,  in 
statesmanship,  in  law,  in  theology.  He  wrote  many  books,  but  to 
only  one  of  which  have  we  here  any  occasion  for  reference. 

In  theology  he  was  an  Arminian,  and  at  a  time  when  he,  with 

many  others,  suffered  no  little  persecution.     But  all  the  tendencies 

of  his  mind,  as  well  as  the  logic  of  his  reason,  gave  him 

AN  ARMINIAN.    pj,g£gj.gjjpg  Jqj.  ^]^|g  gygtem  as  lu  comparlson  with  the 

Calvinism  of  Gomarus  or  the  Synod  of  Dort.  There  was  no  nar- 
rowness in  the  cast  of  his  soul.  On  all  great  questions  his  views 
were  at  once  broad  and  profound.  On  the  rights  of  conscience,  and 
of  religious  and  political  freedom,  he  was  very  far  in  advance  of  his 
time.  "And,  indeed,  the  Arminian  doctrine,  which,  discarding 
the  Calvinistic  dogma  of  absolute  predestination,  teaches  that  man 
is  free  to  accept  or  to  refuse  grace,  could  not  fail  to  suit  a  mind 
such  as  that  of  Grotius.^'*  Yet  he  was  no  latitudinarian  ;  nor  was 
his  theology  a  matter  of  mere  sentiment.  It  was  the  fruit  of  pro- 
found study.  And  the  more  protracted  and  the  profounder  his 
study  the  more  thorough  was  his  Arminianism. 

Grotius  held  firmly  the  fact  of  an  atonement  in  Christ.     In  this 

faith  he  undertook  its  discussion,  having  in  special  view  its  defense 

against  the  assumptions  and  obiections  of  the  Socinian 

tttq    DEFENSIO  ±  o 

scheme.     Such  is  the  import  of.  the  title  which  he  gave 
to  his  work.^     It  is  not  clear  that  he  began  the  discussion  with  full 

'  The  Atonement.  Discourses  and  Treatises  by  Edwards,  Smalley,  Maxey, 
Emmons,  Griffin,  Burge,  and  Weeks.  With  an  Introductory  Essay  by  Edwards 
A,  Park.  In  this  large  volume  Professor  Park  has  collected  the  best  New 
England  literature  on  this  subject.  His  own  Introductory  Essay  adds  much 
to  the  value  of  the  book. 

^  W.  F.  "Warren  :  "  The  Edwardean  Theory  of  Atonement,"  Methodist  Quar- 
terly Review,  July,  1860. 

^  Neiv  American  Cyclopaedia,  1859,  art.  "Grotius." 

■*  McClintock  &  Strong  :  Cyclopcedia,  vol.  iii,  p.  1017. 

^  Def  ensio  Fidei  Catholicae  de  Satisf actione  Christi  A  dversus  F.  Socinum. 
Translated  in  Bibliotheea  Sacra,  January  and  April,  1879. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  IGI 

forecast  of  tiie  outcome.  He  probably  had  no  new  theory  previ- 
ously constructed  or  even  outlined  in  thought.  On  the  authority 
of  Scripture  he  was  sure  of  an  atonement  in  the  blood  of  Christ. 
He  was  sure,  therefore,  of  the  error  of  the  Socinian  doctrine,  and 
of  the  fallacy  of  its  objections  against  this  fact.  But  in  its  defense 
he  opened  his  own  way  to  the  new  theory  ever  since  rightfully  con- 
nected with  his  name. 

It  is  rarely  the  case  that  the  originator  of  a  new  theory,  especially 
in  a  sphere  of  profound  and  broadly  related  doctrinal  truth,  clears 
it  of  all  alien  elements,  or  achieves  completeness  in 
scientific  construction.  Such,  on  this  subject,  is  the  ^'^  ""^™'^''^- 
fact  with  Anselm.  It  is  also  true  of  Grotius.  We  do  not,  there- 
fore, accept  all  his  positions.  Some  are  not  essential  to  his  doc- 
trine. In  others  he  is  not  entirely  self -consistent.  We  accept  Avhat 
really  constitutes  his  theory,  and  have  little  concern  for  any  thing 
else.  He  had  an  equal  right  with  Anselm  to  construct  a  doctrine 
of  atonement,  and  achieved  a  higher  scientific  result.  Hence  tlie 
history  of  doctrines  records  less  modification  in  his  theory  than  in 
the  Anselmic.  We  have  no  occasion  either  closely  to  review  or  to 
defend  him.  This  would  only  anticipate  much  of  the  discussion 
assigned  to  the  present  chapter.  It  would  be  easy  to  cite  reviews 
from  various  authors,  and  to  give  references  to  many  others.  But 
their  very  commonness  to  discussions  of  the  atonement  renders  this 
unnecessary.  Yet  a  few  references  will  follow  ;  and  we  here  give  a 
summary  statement  of  his  doctrinal  position. 

"  The  fundamental  error  of  the  Socinian  view  was  found  by 
Grotius  to  be  this  :  that  Socinus  regarded  God,  in  the  socinian 
work  of  redemption,  as  holding  the  place  merely  of  a  error. 
creditor,  or  master,  whose  simple  will  was  a  sufficient  discharge 
from  the  existing  obligation.  But,  as  we  have  in  the  subject  before 
us  to  deal  with  punishment  and  the  remission  of  punishment,  God 
cannot  bo  looked  upon  as  a  creditor,  or  an  injured  party,  since  the 
act  of  inflicting  punishment  does  not  belong  to  an  injured  party  as 
such.  The  right  to  punish  is  not  one  of  the  rights  of  an  absolute 
master  or  of  a  creditor,  these  being  merely  personal  in  their  charac- 
ter ;  it  is  the  right  of  a  ruler  only.  Hence  God  must  be  considered 
as  a  ruler,  and  the  right  to  punish  belongs  to  the  ruler  as  such,  since 
it  exists,  not  for  the  punisher's  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  common- 
wealth, to  maintain  its  order  and  to  promote  the  public  good.'" 

The  passage  just  cited  is  a  very  free  rendering  of  the  original  of 
Grotius,  yet  sufficing  for  the  leading  ideas.     It  is  given  as  opening 

'  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  ix,  p.  259.     The  citation  is  from  a  mainly  satisfac- 
tory review  of  the  Grotian  theory  by  Baur. 


162  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

up,  especially  by  the  logic  of  its  principles,  his  theory  of  atonement. 
It  has  not  entire  acceptability.  Respecting  the  right  to  punish  sin 
as  purely  a  rectoral  one,  the  principle  may  apply  to  man,  but  not 
to  God.  He  has  such  a  personal  right.  If  Grotius  allows  an  in- 
ference to  the  contrary,  so  far  we  think  him  in  error.  The  case  of 
forgiveness  is  different ;  and  it  is  correct  to  say  that  God  may  not 
forgive  sin  irrespective  of  the  interests  of  his  moral  government. 
This  is  a  vital  principle  in  the  governmental  theory.  It  is  the 
ground  on  which  Grotius  maintains  the  necessity  for  an  atonement 
and  defends  it  against  the  objections  of  Socinianism. 

Xor  did  he  hold  any  doubtful  view  respecting  either  the  intrinsic 
SIN  AN'D  PEN-  evil  of  sin  or  the  imperative  office  of  penalty.  Sin  de- 
ALTY.  serves  eternal   penalty,  and  the   penalty  must  not  be 

remitted,  except  on  rectorally  sufficient  ground.  Thus,  after  setting 
forth  the  reasons  for  punishment,  he  says  :  "  God  has,  therefore, 
most  weighty  reasons  for  punishing,  especially  if  we  are  permitted 
to  estimate  the  magnitude  and  multitude  of  sins.  But  because, 
among  all  his  attributes,  love  of  the  human  race  is  pre-eminent, 
God  was  willing,  though  he  could  have  justly  punished  all  men  with 
deserved  and  legitimate  punishment,  that  is,  with  eternal  death — 
and  had  reasons  for  so  doing — to  spare  those  who  believe  in  Christ. 
But,  since  we  must  be  spared  either  by  setting  forth,  or  not  setting 
forth,  some  example  against  so  many  great  sins,  in  his  most  perfect 
wisdom  he  chose  that  way  by  which  he  could  manifest  more  of  his 
attributes  at  once,  namely,  both  clemency  and  severity,  or  his  hate 
of  sin  and  care  for  the  preservation  of  his  law.''^  In  these  views, 
while  essentially  divergent  from  the  theory  of  satisfaction,  he  is 
thoroughly  valid  and  conclusive  against  vSocinianism. 

While  thus  asserting  the  intrinsic  evil  of  sin,  Grotius  denies  an 
absolute  necessity  arising  therefrom  for  its  punishment.  The  pun- 
ishment of  sin  is  just,  but  not  in  itself  an  obligation.  The  intrin- 
sic evil  of  sin  renders  its  penal  retribution  just,  but  not  a  require- 
ment of  judicial  rectitude.  Threatened  penalty,  unless  marked  by 
irrevocability,  is  not  absolute.  A  threat  differs  from  a  promise. 
The  latter  conveys  a  right  and  takes  on  obligation  ;  the  former  does 
not.' 

In  this  sense  he  regar"ded  the  divine  law  as  positive,  and  its  pen- 
PEXALTY  RK-  alty  as  remissible.  The  law,  in  precept  and  penalty,  is 
MissiBLE.  2k  divine  enactment ;  in  execution,  a  divine  act.     The 

execution  is  not  a  judicial  obligation,  except  for  rectoral  ends.  And 
this  is  the  permissible  relaxation  of  law  which  Grotius  maintains. 

'  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  xxxvi,  p.  287. 

^  Ibid.,  pp.  153-155  ;  Dale  :   The  Atonement,  p.  296. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  K;:^ 

Tliere  is  such  a  relaxation,  as  there  is  reality  in  the  divine  forgive- 
ness of  sin.  Nor  have  satisfactionists  any  consistent  ground  for  its 
denial,  nor  any  sufficient  reason  for  their  adverse  criticism  of  Gro- 
tius  on  this  account.  By  their  own  concession  that  sin,  vv^ith  its 
demerit,  is  not  and  cannot  be  transferred  to  Christ,  they  admit  by 
inevitable  implication  that  it  is  not  punished  in  him,  and  hence, 
that  the  law  in  its  penalty  is  relaxed  in  every  instance  of  non- 
execution  upon  the  actual  sinner. 

Holding  thus  the  remissibility  of  penalty  so  far  as  the  demerit  of 
sin  is  concerned,  Grotius,  as  previously  noted,  main-  office  of 
tains,  with  its  justice,  its  profound  importance  in  the  pknalty. 
interest  of  moral  government.  Forgiveness  too  freely  granted,  or 
too  often  repeated,  and  especially  on  slight  grounds,  would  annul 
the  authority  of  the  law,  or  render  it  powerless  for  its  great  and  im- 
perative rectoral  ends.  Thus  he  finds  the  necessity  for  an  atone- 
ment— for  some  vicarious  provision — which,  on  the  remission  of 
penalty,  may  conserve  these  ends.  Such  a  provision  he  finds  in 
the  death  of  Christ,  set  forth  as  a  penal  example.  So  he  styles  it. 
And  he  makes  a  very  free  use  of  the  terms  of  penal  substitution. 
Yet  he  does  not  seem  to  regard  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  penal  in 
any  very  strict  sense — certainly  not  as  a  substitutional  punishment 
of  sin  in  the  satisfaction  of  a  purely  retributive  justice.  Such  an 
example  he  regards  as  at  once  a  manifestation  of  the  goodness  and 
severity  of  God  and  the  odiousness  of  sin,  and  as  a  deterrent  from 
its  commission. 

Thus  his  theory  of  atonement  accords  with  his  view  of  punish- 
ment and  its  remission.  These  are  rectoral  rather  than 
personal  acts.  So  the  atonement,  taking  the  place  of 
penalty  in  its  rectoral  ends,  regards  God  in  his  administration  rather 
than  in  his  personal  character  or  absolute  retributive  justice.  And 
thus  he  grounds  the  atonement  in  the  principles  which  properly 
constitute  the  governmental  theory. 

The  Acceptilatio  of  Duns  Scotus  is  very  freely  charged  upon  Gro- 
tius, especially  by  satisfactionists.  Bauer  joins  in  the  not  accepti- 
accusation  in  the  article  previously  given  by  reference  ;  national. 
though  he  does  not  withhold  the  fact  that  Grotius  himself  formally 
rejected  the  principle.  This  he  certainly  did,  and  denied  that  ac- 
ceptilation  could  have  any  place  with  the  punishment  of  sin.  Re- 
pelling this  accusation  as  brought  by  Socinus  against  the  atonement, 
he  says  :  "  For,  in  the  first  place,  this  word  may  be  applied,  even 
when  no  payment  precedes,  to  the  right  over  a  thing  loaned,  but  is 
not,  and  cannot  be,  applied  to  punishment.  \Ye  nowhere  read  that 
indulgence  of  crimes  was  called  by  the  ancients  acceptilation.     For 


16  4  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

that  is  said  to  be  accepted  which  can  be  accepted.  The  ruler  prop- 
erly exacts  corporal  punishment,  but  does  not  accept  it ;  because 
from  punishment  nothing  properly  comes  to  him.'"  It  is  as  a 
logical  implication  that  Bauer  makes  the  charge  ;  but  Grotius 
certainly  understood  the  question,  and  the  logic  of  its  facts  and 
principles,  as  thoroughly  as  his  reviewer.  We  join  issue,  and  deny 
that  acceptilation  is  in  any  logical  sense  consequent  to  the  theory 
of  Grotius  ;  while  we  affirm  its  close  affinity  with  that  of  Anselm. 

Leading  divines  of  the  Church — Abelard,  Bernard,  Peter  Lom- 
bard, Duns  Scotus,  and  others — contemporaries  of  Anselm,  or  his 
close  followers  in  time,  were  not  all  close  followers  of  his  "  Cur  Deus 
Homo."  Some  diverged  so  widely  as  to  propound  really  new  the- 
ories. But  Duns  Scotus,  the  heretical  acceptilation- 
ist,  really  propounded  no  new  theory  in  kind.  He  dis- 
sented from  Anselm,  not  respecting  the  nature  of  an  atonement  in 
the  meritorious  obedience  and  suffering  of  Christ,  and  in  satisfac- 
tion or  payment  of  a  divine  claim — a  claim  arising  out  of  the  wrong 
which  God  had  suffered  on  account  of  sin — not  on  these  determin- 
ing facts,  but  respecting  the  amount  of  the  debt  and  the  relative 
value  of  the  payment.  With  Anselm,  the  debt  was  infinite  ;  with 
Duns,  not  strictly  infinite.  With  the  former,  the  payment  was  in 
full ;  with  the  latter,  only  in  part ;  which,  however,  God  graciously 
accepted  in  lieu  of  the  whole.  This  is  the  Acceptilatio  of  Duns 
Scotus,  as  known  in  historical  theology.^  His  divergence  was  spe- 
cially from  a  difference  in  Christology,  or  respecting  the  redemptive 
sufferings  of  Christ.  With  Anselm,  his  sufferings  as  the  God-man 
were  of  infinite  value,  and  therefore  a  payment  in  full ;  while  witli 
Duns  they  were  strictly  limited  to  his  human  nature,  and,  therefore, 
of  finite  value,  and  a  payment  only  in  part.  But  he  all  the  while 
adheres  to  the  same  atonement  in  kind — atonement  by  payment 
toward  the  satisfaction  of  a  divine  claim.  This  is  proof  that  his 
Acceptilatio  has  a  close  affinity  to  the  theory  of  Anselm. 
MIC  THAN  GRo-  It  Is  ouly  wlth  such  a  theory  that  it  can  have  any  affin- 
"'^'^"  ity.     It  is  grounded  in  the  ideas  of  debt  and  payment. 

There  must  be  a  divine  claim  payable  in  meritorious  obedience  and 
6'affering.  Whatever  is  paid  must  go  to  the  account  in  claim. 
This  is  acceptilation.  These  ideas  of  debt  and  payment  have  full 
place  in  the  Anselmic  theory,  as  in  the  satisfaction  theory.  But  Gro- 
tius held  no  theory  of  sin  and  penalty,  and  no  theory  of  atonement, 
which  admits  any  such  sense  of  debt  and  payment.  His  adverse 
critics  clearly  prove  that  he  did  not.     And  as  he  formally  denied 

'  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  xxxvi,  p .  298. 

"  Hagenbach  :  History  of  Doctrine,  vol.  ii,  pp.  39,  44. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  165 

acceptilatiou,  and  the  very  possibility  of  it  in  the  case  bf  penalty  for 
Bin,  so  the  principles  of  his  doctrine  deny  for  him  all  the  ideas  of 
debt  and  payment — and  in  part  as  in  whole — without  which  it  has 
no  place. 

Mr.  Watson,  while  freely  citing  Grotius  as  an  authority,  accuses 
him  of  unduly  leaning  to  that  view  of  the  atonement  so  mkre  k\- 
which  regards  it  "  as  a  merely  toise  and  Jii  expedient  of  '''■■n'*'-'<T. 
government."  '  He  probably  had  specially  in  view  this  passage  in 
Grotius  :  ''  It  becomes  us  only  to  make  this  preliminary  remark — 
that  Socinus  is  not  right  in  postulating  that  we  must  assign  a 
cause  which  shall  prove  that  God  could  not  have  acted  other- 
wise. For  such  a  cause  is  not  required  in  those  things  which  God 
does  freely.  But  he  who  will  maintain  that  this  was  a  free  action 
may  refer  to  Augustine,  who  declares  not  that  God  had  no  other 
possible  way  of  liberating  us,  but  that  there  was  no  other  more  ap- 
propriate way  for  healing  our  misery,  neither  could  be.  But  also 
before  Augustine,  Athanasius  had  said  :  '  God  was  able  by  a  mere 
utterance  to  annul  the  curse  without  coming  himself  at  all.  But 
it  is  necessary  to  consider  what  is  useful  to  men,  and  not  always 
what  is  possible  to  God.'  Nazarius  says  :  '  It  was  possible  for  God 
even  without  the  incarnation  (of  Christ)  to  save  us  by  his  mere 
volition.'  Bernard  :  '  Who  does  not  know  that  the  Almighty  had 
at  hand  various  methods  for  our  redemption,  justification,  libera- 
tion ?  But  this  does  not  detract  from  the  efficacy  of  that  method 
which  he  has  selected  out  of  many.'"' 

We  do  not  understand  Grotius  to  indorse  all  these  citations, 
though  from  authors  so  eminent.  If  he  did,  we  cer-  mode  of  the 
tainly  could  not  follow  him.  And  his  doctrine  of  atone-  sacrifice. 
ment  has  a  far  deeper  sense  than  that  of  a  dispensable  expedient  of 
government.  His  position  here  is  that  of  the  divine  freedom  in 
the  particular  manner  of  human  redemption  within  the  limit  of  a 
sufficient  redemption.  Only  a  divine  person  could  redeem  the 
world  ;  and  the  redemption  could  be  effected  only  by  a  great  per- 
sonal sacrifice.  The  necessity  is  from  the  office  which  the  atone- 
ment must  fulfill.  But,  with  the  profoundest  conviction  of  truth 
in  these  facts,  we  should  greatly  hesitate  to  say — indeed,  we  do  not 
believe — that  in  the  resources  of  infinite  wisdom  the  precise  man- 
ner of  the  mediation  of  Christ  was  the  only  possible  manner  of 
human  redemption.  We  are  not  sure  that  Grotius  means  any  thing 
more. 

5.   The  Consistent  Arnwiian  Tlieory. — In  the  reference  to  Ar- 

'  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  139. 
^  Bihliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  xxxvi,  p.  286. 
13 


166  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

miuiauism  we  include  the  Wesleyan  school,  and  take  the  position  of 
consistency  with  special  reference  to  it. 

Wesleyan  Arminianism  has  ever  been  true  to  the  fact  of  an  atone- 
TRCE  TO  THE  Hieut  lu  Clirlst.  In  her  hymns  and  prayers,  in  her 
FACT.  u^tterances  of  a  living  Christian  experience,  in  her  ser- 

mons and  exhortations,  this  great  fact  ever  receives  the  fullest  rec- 
ognition. In  her  soteriology  '*  Christ  is  all,  and  in  all."  '  In  the 
fullness  and  constancy  of  her  faith  in  the  reality  and  necessity  of 
an  atonement  in  Christ,  Wesleyan  Methodism  has  no  reason  to  shun 
any  comparison  with  the  most  orthodox  soteriology. 

AYhat  is  our  doctrine  of  atonement  ?  The  answer  to  this  question 
RKspECTiNG  ^^  uot  SO  simplc  or  unperplexed  as  many,  at  first  thought, 
THE  DOCTRINE,  would  supposc.  Thc  Scripture  terms  of  atonement 
have,  with  all  propriety,  been  in  the  freest  use  with  us.  Nor  have 
we  been  careful  to  shun  the  terminology  of  the  strictest  doctrine  of 
satisfaction.  An  inquiry  for  the  ideas  associated  with  these  terms 
in  the  popular  thought  of  Methodism  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
atonement  would  probably, bring  no  very  definite  answer.  In  view 
of  all  the  facts,  we  are  constrained  to  think  that  the  dominant  idea 
has  been  that  of  a  real  and  necessary  atonement  in  Christ,  while 
the  idea  of  its  nature  has  been  rather  indefinite.  We  are  very  sure 
that,  while  the  popular  faith  of  Methodism  has  utterly  excluded  the 
Socinian  view,  it  has  not  been  at  one  with  the  theory  of  satis- 
faction. 

Our  earlier  written  soteriology  has  a  like  indefiniteness.  It  is 
OUR  wRiTTEx  always  clear  and  pronounced  on  the  fact  of  an  atone- 
soTERioLOGT.  mcnt,  but  not  definite  respecting  its  nature.  This,  how- 
ever, should  be  noted,  that  our  written  soteriology,  until  recently, 
contains  comparatively  little  on  this  question. 

Mr.  Watson's  discussion  is  mainly  a  dispute  with  the  Socinian 
WATSON'S  scheme  and  with  Calvinistic  limitationists.  With  rare 
VIEWS.  ability  he  maintains  the  fact  of  an  atonement  against  the 

one,  and  its  universality  against  the  other.  ^  But  on  the  question  of 
theories  we  cannot  accord  to  him  any  very  clear  view.  Grotius,  as 
it  appears,  was  his  chief  authority  ;  and  next  to  him,  Stillingfleet, 
who  wrote  mainly  in  defense  of  Grotius.^  But  Grotius,  while  giv- 
ing the  principles  of  a  new  theory,  did  not,  as  previously  noted, 
give  to  its  construction  scientific  completeness.  He  wrote  from  the 
stand-point  of  the  Reformed  doctrine,  but  with  such  new  principles 
as  really  constitute  another  doctrine.  But,  clear  and  determining 
as  his  principles  are,  he  failed  to  give  either  theory  in  scientific 

'  Col.  iii,  11.  ^  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  chapters  xix-xxix. 

V  3  Works,  vol.  iii,  p.  227. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEOKY.  167 

completeness.     This  is  just  what  Mr.  Watson  has  failed  to  do.     And 
he  is  less  definite  tliau  Grotius  himself. 

He  rejects  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  in  its  usual  exjjosition,  and 
requires  for  its  acceptance  such  modifications  as  it  cannot  admit. 
He  interprets  satisfaction  much  in  the  manner  of  Grotius,  and 
iience  in  a  sense  which  the  Reformed  doctrine  must  reject.  And 
the  doctrine  which  he  arraigns  and  refutes  as  the  antinomian 
atonement  is  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  with  the 
formal  rejection  of  its  antinomian  implications.  He  is,  therefore, 
not  a  satisfactionist.' 

The  principles  of  moral  government  in  which  Mr.  Watson  grounds 
the  necessity  for  an  atonement  mainly  determine  for  „ig  pRUJci- 
him  the  governmental  theory.'^  The  same  is  true  of  his  ^''''''^• 
discussion  of  the  "  vinculum  "  between  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and 
the  forgiveness  of  sius.^  And  when  we  add  his  broader  views  in 
soteriology  as  including  the  universality  of  the  atonement,  its  strictly 
provisory  character,  and  the  real  couditionality  of  its  saving  grace 
— views  necessarily  belonging  to  all  consistent  Arminian  theology, 
and  which  Mr.  Watson  so  fully  maintained — his  principles  require 
for  him  the  governmental  theory.  The  more  certainly  is  this  so,  as 
it  is  impossible  to  construct  any  new  doctrine  of  a  real  atonement 
between  this  and  the  satisfaction  theory. 

So  far  as  we  know.  Dr.  Whedon  has  never  given  his  theory  of 
atonement  in  the  style  of  the  governmental ;  yet  it  is  in  whedon's 
principle  the  same.  In  his  statement  of  the  doctrines  views. 
of  Methodism  it  is  given  thus  :  '^  Christ  as  truly  died  as  a  substitute 
for  the  sinner  as  Damon  could  have  died  as  a  substitute  for  Pythias. 
Yet  to  make  the  parallel  complete,  Damon  should  so  die  for  Pythias 
{1.'?  that,  unless  Pythias  should  accept  the  substitution  of  Damon  in 
;ui  its  conditions,  he  should  not  receive  its  benefits,  and  Damon's 
death  should  be  for  him  in  vain  ;  Pythias  may  be  as  rightfully  exe- 
cuted as  if  Damon  had  not  died.  If  the  sinner  accept  not  the 
atonement,  but  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  him,  Christ  has  died  for  i 
him  in  vain ;  he  perishes  for  whom  Christ  died.  If  the  whole 
human  race  were  to  reject  the  atonement,  the  atonement  would  be 
a  demonstration  of  the  righteousness  and  goodness  of  God,  but 
would  be  productive  of  aggravation  of  human  guilt  rather  than  of 
salvation  from  it.  The  imputation  of  the  sin  of  man,  or  his  pun- 
ishment, to  Christ,  is  but  a  popular  conception,  justifiable,  if  under- 
stood as  only  conceptual ;  just  as  we  might  say  that  Damon  was 
pmiished  instead  of  Pythias.     In  strictness  of  language  and  thought 

'  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  pp.  138-143. 
^Ibid.,  pp.  87-103.  ^Ibicf.,  pp.  143-145. 


108  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

neither  crime^  guilt,  nor  punishment  is  personally  transferable/' ' 
Any  one  at  all  familiar  with  theories  of  atonement  will  see  at  a 
glance  that  the  principles  contained  in  this  statement  are  thoroughly 
exclusive  of  the  satisfaction  theory,  and  that  they  have  a  true  scien- 
tific position  only  with  the  rectoral  theory.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
doctrine  in  the  sermon  to  which  reference  is  given. 

On  the  theory  of  atonement  we  understand  Dr.  Raymond  to 
RAYMOND'S  ^®  witli  Dr.  Whcdon.  He  states  the  doctrine  thus  : 
VIEW,  "  i"iie  death  of  Christ  is  not  a  substituted  penalty,  but 

a  substitute  for  a  penalty.  The  necessity  of  an  atonement  is  not 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  justice  of  God  requires  an  invariable  ex- 
ecution of  deserved  penalty,  but  in  the  fact  that  the  honor  and 
glory  of  God,  and  the  welfare  of  his  creatures,  require  that  his 
essential  and  rectoral  righteousness  be  adequately  declared.  The 
death  of  Christ  is  exponential  of  divine  justice,  and  is  a  satisfaction 
in  that  sense,  and  not  in  the  sense  that  it  is,  as  of  a  debt,  the  full 
and  complete  payment  of  all  its  demands."  ^  The  principles  given 
in  this  passage  exclude  the  satisfaction  atonement,  and  require  as 
their  only  scientific  position  the  rectoral  theory.  All  this  is  even 
more  apparent  when  the  passage  cited  is  interpreted  in  the  light  of 
the  further  references  given. 

With  this  view  Dr.  Raymond's  doctrine  of  justification,  as  that 
of  every  consistent  Arminian,  fully  accords.  It  is  not  a  discharge 
of  the  sinner  through  the  merited  punishment  of  his  sin  in  his 
substitute,  but  an  actual  forgiveness,  and  such  as  can  issue  only  in 
the  non-execution  of  penalty.^ 

The  principles  and  office  of  the  atonement  in  Christ,  as  maintained 
BLEDSOE'S  by  Dr.  Bledsoe,  agree  with  the  governmental  theory. 
VIEW.  This  will  be  clear  to  any  one  who  will  read  with  dis- 

crimination his  discussion  of  the  question."  And  with  Arminians 
he  is  rightfully  a  representative  author  on  questions  of  this  kind. 

The  Wesleyan  soteriology,  taken  as  a  whole,  excludes  the  satis- 
faction theory,  and  requires  the  governmental  as  the  only  theory 
WESLEYAN  consistcnt  with  itself.  The  doctrines  of  soteriology, 
SOTERIOLOGY.  ^ff[^}^  |;he  atouemcnt  included,  must  admit  of  system- 
ization,  and  be  in  scientific  accord.  If  not,  there  is  error  at  some 
point,  as  no  truth  can  be  in  discord  with  any  other  truth.  Now 
certain  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Wesleyan  soteriology  are  very  con- 
spicuous and  entirely  settled.     One  is  that  the  atonement  is  only 

'  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  xix,  pp.  360,  261.  Dr.  Wliedon  gives  the  same  views 
in  his  sermon  on  Substitutional  Atonement. 

'  Systematic  Theolocjij,  vol.  ii,  pp.  257,  258.     See  also  pp.  231,  264-268. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  258.  *  Theodicij,  pp.  276-293. 


GOVEllNMEXTAL  THEORY.  169 

provisory  in  its  character ;  that  it  renders  men  salvable,  but  does 
not  necessarily  save  them.  Another,  and  the  consequence  of  the 
former,  is  the  conditionality  of  salvation.  Nor  is  this  such  as 
Calvinism  often  asserts,  yet  holds  with  the  monergism  of  the  sys- 
tem, but  a  real  conditionality  in  accord  with  the  synergism  of  the 
truest  Arrainianism.  On  these  facts  there  is  neither  hesitation 
nor  divergence  in  Methodism.  With  these  facts,  the  atonement 
of  satisfaction  must  be  excluded  from  her  system  of  doctrines,  and 
the  rectoral  theory  maintained  as  the  only  doctrine  of  a  real  atone- 
ment agreeing  with  them. 

II.  Public  Justice. 

We  previously  treated  justice  in  its  distinctions  as  commutative, 
distributive,  punitive — the  last  being  a  special  phase  of  the  distrib- 
utive. We  also  named  public  justice,  but  deferred  it  for  discus- 
sion in  connection  with  the  rectoral  theory  of  atonement.  We  have 
now  reached  the  proper  place  for  its  treatment. 

1.  Relatioyi  of  Public  Justice  to  Atonement. — Any  theory  of 
atonement  embodying  enough  truth  to  be  really  a  theory  must  take 
special  account  of  divine  justice.  The  relation  between  the  two  is 
most  intimate;  so  intimate,  indeed,  that  the  view  of  justice  must  be 
determinative  of  the  theory  of  atonement.  This  we  found  to  be 
true  of  the  theory  of  satisfaction.  It  is  not  only  in  accord  with 
the  principles  of  justice  asserted  in  connection  with  it,  but  is  im- 
peratively required  by  them.  They  will  admit  no  other  doctrine. 
If  justice  must  punish  sin  simply  for  the  reason  of  its  demerit, 
penal  substitution  is  the  only  possible  atonement.  So  the  govern- 
mental theory  must  be  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  justice  main- 
tained in  connection  with  it ;  and,  to  be  true,  must  accord  with 
justice  as  a  divine  attribute,  and  in  all  its  relations  to  sin  and  to 
the  ends  of  moral  government. 

As  in  the  satisfaction  theory,  so  in  the  rectoral,  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  are  an  atonement  for  sin  only  as  in  some  sense  they  take  the 
place  of  penalty.  But  they  do  not  replace  penalty  in  penalty  re- 
the  same  sense  in  both.  In  the  one  they  take  its  place  placed. 
as  a  penal  substitute,  thus  fulfilling  the  office  of  justice  in  the  actual 
punishment  of  sin;  in  the  other  they  take  its  place  in  the  fulfillment 
of  its  office  as  concerned  with  the  interests  of  moral  government. 
It  is  the  office  of  justice  to  maintain  these  interests  through  the 
means  of  penalty.  Therefore,  atonement  in  the  mediation  of  Christ 
must  so  take  the  place  of  penalty  as  to  fulfill  this  same  office,  while 
the  penalty  is  remitted. 

Such  being  the  office  of  atonement  in  the  governmental  theory, 
13 


170  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

it  is  clear  that  for  a  proper  exposition  of  the  doctrine  we  require  ait 
OBJECTIONS  exact  and  discriminating  statement  of  public  Justice,  or 
OBVIATED.  of  penalty  as  the  means  of  Justice  for  the  conservation 
of  moral  government.  We  shall  thus  secure  a  right  construction 
of  the  doctrine,  and,  also,  obviate  certain  objections  which  have  no 
validity  against  the  doctrine  itself,  whatever  force  they  may  have 
against  defective  forms  of  it.  No  ground  will  remain  for  objecting 
either  that  the  theory  makes  light  of  the  demerit  of  sin,  or  that  it 
transforms  justice  into  mere  benevolence,  or  that  it  regards  the  sub- 
stitution of  Christ  in  suffering  as  a  mere  expedient,  in  place  of 
which  some  other  provision  would  answer  as  well. 

2.  Piihlic  Justice  one  ivitli  Divine  Justice. — Public  Justice  is  not 
a  distinct  kind  of  Justice;  not  other  than  divine  Justice.  It  is  divine 
justice  in  moral  administration.  God  is  moral  Ruler  only  as  he  has 
moral  subjects.  Therefore,  in  the  eternity  anteceding  their  crea- 
tion he  existed  without  any  rectoral  office  of  Justice.  Their  crea- 
tion gave  him  no  new  attribute,  though  it  brought  him  into  new 
relations.  In  these  new  relations  to  moral  beings  his  justice,  an 
essential  and  eternal  attribute  of  his  nature,  found  its  proper  office 
in  moral  government.  In  the  fulfillment  of  this  office  it  rules 
through  the  means  of  reward  and  penalty.  So,  in  the  moral  sys- 
tem, public  justice  is  the  one  divine  justice  in  moral  administra- 
tion. 

3.  One  with  Distrihutive  Justice. — In  principle  public  Justice  is 
one  with  distributive  justice.  Subjects  differ  in  moral  character. 
Some  are  obedient  to  the  law  of  duty;  others,  disobedient.  This 
makes  a  difference  in  character.  The  difference  is  real  and  intrin- 
sic. So  the  law  of  God  discriminates  the  two  classes.  In  this  our 
moral  reason  is  in  full  consent  with  the  divine  law.  In  the  pro- 
foundest  convictions  of  our  moral  consciousness  we  are  assured  of 
the  reality  of  moral  obligation,  and  of  an  essential  ethical  difference 
between  obedience  and  disobedience;  and  equally,  that  the  former 
has  merit  or  rewardableness,  and  the  latter,  punitive  desert.  So  in 
moral  administration  God  deals  with  men  according  to  their  con- 
duct, rewarding  their  obedience  and  punishing  their  sin.  The  fact 
does  not  require  exact  Justice  in  the  present  state  of  probation. 
Such  is  the  law  of  our  responsible  being.  But  this,  in  essential 
principle  and  rectoral  office,  is  simply  public  Justice,  or  Justice  in 
moral  administration.  All  its  use  of  reward  and  penalty,  and 
for  whatever  reason  or  end,  is  in  the  view  of  moral  character  in  the 
subjects  of  government.  Public  justice  is,  therefore,  no  law  of 
mere  expediency,  or  of  mere  expedients;  in  essential  principle  and 
in  office  it  is  one  with  divine  Justice,  one  with  distributive  Justice. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  171 

4.  Ground  of  its  Penalties. — Within  the  realm  of  the  divine 
government  the  sole  ground  of  the  penalties  of  administrative  or 
public  justice  lies  in  the  demerit  of  sin.  The  fact  is  not  other, 
nor  in  any  sense  modified  by  any  or  all  the  ulterior  ends  or  utilities 
of  penalty  in  the  interest  of  moral  government.  All  penal  inflic- 
tion falls  upon  the  demerit  of  sin  as  really  and  restrictedly  as  though 
its  punishment  were  the  sole  thing  in  the  divine  view.  This  is  jus- 
tice, and  this  only.  Public  justice  has  no  other  ground  for  its 
penalties.  Nor  may  it,  except  on  such  ground,  inflict  any  penalty 
for  any  ulterior  end  or  interest,  however  great  and  urgent.  This 
truth  cannot  be  too  deeply  emphasized. 

We  are  speaking  of  divine  justice  in  moral  administration.  Any 
thing  qualifying  the  administration  of  justice  in  human  government 
arises,  in  part,  from  a  want  of  p^^nitive  prerogative  over 

.,  .      ,     .         .  1  -J.       e      •  •  i.      £  •         T,-Ti         ONLY  DEMERIT. 

the  intrinsic  demerit  ot  sm;  m  part,  irom  an  mabiJity 
to  know  in  any  given  case  what  the  real  demerit  is.  We  may  infer 
the  guilt  from  the  apparent  motive,  but  we  cannot  search  the  heart. 
Hence,  in  dealing  Avith  human  conduct,  our  rightful  use  of  penalty 
is  not  really  to  punish  sin  as  having  intrinsic  demerit,  but  to  pro- 
tect society  from  its  injury.  The  former  is  the  divine  prerogative. 
God  searches  the  heart,  and  knows  all  the  secret  springs  and  mo- 
tives of  human  action.  He  knows  all  the  sinfulness  of  such  action. 
It  is  his  sole  right  to  punish  it,  simply  as  such.  In  all  the  uni- 
verse, and  for  any  and  all  purposes,  he  has  nothing  but  sin  to 
punish. 

On  this  ground  public  justice  is  one  with  distributive  justice,  one 
with  divine  justice;  and  as  wrought  into  a  proper  rectoral  atone- 
ment even  more  rigidly  adheres  to  the  principle  than  guilt  only 
the  purely  retributive  justice  as  wrought  into  the  ""^"^  demerit. 
theory  of  satisfaction.  This  theory  equally  asserts  the  same  princi- 
ple, but  departs  from  it  in  the  futile  attempt  to  separate  guilt  from 
demerit,  to  carry  it  over  by  imputation  to  Christ,  and  so  to  have 
the  merited  penalty  inflicted  upon  him,  while  the  sinner  and  the 
sin  are  left  behind.  This  is  a  real  departure  from  the  prinei])le. 
W^e  may  technically  distinguish  between  sin  and  guilt,  taking  the 
former  for  personal  demerit  and  the  latter  for  answerableness  in 
penalty.  W^e  go  further,  and  say  that  on  such  distinction  there 
may  be  personal  demerit  without  guilt — as  a  soul  graciously  forgiven 
still  has  such  demerit  but  not  such  guilt.  But  the  converse,  that 
there  may  be  guilt  apart  from  demerit — guilt  as  an  amenability  to  ] 
penalty — does  not  follow  and  is  not  true.  Yet  it  is  the  very  truth 
of  this  converse  which  the  scheme  of  satisfaction  requires  as  vital 
to  its  doctrine  of  atonement  by  penal  substitution. 


172  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

We  emphasize  the  principle^  that  in  moral  government  personal 
demerit  is  the  only  source  of  guilt,  and  the  only  ground  of  just 
VALUE  OF  THE  pumshmeut.  If  there  be  any  thing  valid  in  the  impu- 
pRiNciPLE.  tation  of  another's  sin,  it  must  transfer  the  demerit 
before  guilt  can  arise  or  the  punishment  be  just.  On  this  princi- 
ple all  divine  penalties,  whether  executed  or  only  uttered,  and  in 
the  utterance  as  in  the  execution,  at  once  express  both  the  divine 
Justice  and  the  demerit  of  sin.  Hence  the  execution  is  not  really 
necessary  to  that  expression.  The  use  and  value  of  this  fact  will 
come  directly.  And  we  shall  find  with  it  a  sure  basis  for  the  govern- 
mental theory. 

5.  End  of  its  Penalties. — We  have  not  a  full  exposition  of  jus- 
tice simply  in  its  relation  to  the  demerit  of  sin.  In  this  demerit  we 
have  the  real  and  only  ground  of  punishment.  But  in  making 
the  retribution  of  sin  the  sole  oifice  of  penalty  we  deny  a  proper 
public  justice.  Penalty  has  no  reformatory  purpose  respecting  the 
subject  of  its  infliction,  no  exemplary  character,  no  office  as  a  de- 
terrent from  sin.  With  such  functions  of  penalty  we  have  a  public 
REASONS  FOR  jiisticc.  Also,  wc  havc  weighty  reasons  for  punishment 
PUNISHMENT,  bcsidcs  tho  demerit  of  sin.  Any  doctrine  of  justice 
which  omits  such  facts,  or  holds  it  simply  to  the  retribution  of  sin, 
is  very  narrow,  and  utterly  fails  to  measure  its  vast  sphere.  Jus- 
tice, as  concerned  in  moral  government,  must  deeply  regard  all 
legislation,  that  laws  be  in  accord  with  the  obligations,  rights,  and 
interests  of  subjects;  that  the  sanctions  of  reward  and  penalty, 
while  equitable,  be  wisely  adjusted  to  their  high  rectoral  ends.  In 
all  moral  administration  it  must  be  supremely  concerned  for  the 
promotion  of  virtue,  and  the  protection  of  the  rights  and  interests 
of  all.  Thus  we  have  profound  reasons  for  penalty  additional  to 
the  demerit  of  sin.  Nor  has  penalty  any  rational  account  simply  as 
retributive.  It  does  not  so  answer  to  the  common  moral  judgment 
respecting  it,  nor  to  the  severe  denunciations  of  Scripture  against 
criminal  injuries,  nor  to  the  many  appeals  therein  to  instances  of 
divine  retribution  as  deterrents  from  sin.  And  for  a  right  exposi- 
tion of  justice  we  must  take  large  account  of  its  strictly  rectoral 
ends. 

There  is  another  extreme  view,  even  more  impotent,  if  possibly 
so,  for  any  philosophy  of  penalty.  It  is  in  making  the  strictly  rec- 
RETRiBUTivE  toral  cuds  of  punishment  the  whole  account  of  it. 
ELEMENT.  Tlus  omlts  thc  proper  retributive  element.    Punishment 

thus  becomes  an  injustice.  No  interests  of  government,  however 
great  and  urgent,  could  render  it  just.  Only  demerit  in  the  sub- 
jects of  its  infliction  can  do  this.     Besides,  such  a  view  denies  to 


C40VEIiNMEN'rAL  THEORY.  173 

penalty  all  capacity  for  service  in  such  interests.  Except  in  the 
most  restricted  measure,  such  service  can  be  rendered  only  through 
a  right  moral  impression.  Unmerited  punishment  never  could 
make  such  an  impression.  The  moral  nature  never  can  respond  in 
loyalty  to  injustice.  And  however  such  punishment  might  influ- 
ence outward  action,  it  would  ever  turn  away  the  heart  into  rebell- 
ion rather  than  win  it  to  obedience.  "Take  away  from  punish- 
ment this  foundation  of  justice  and  you  destroy  its  utility;  you 
substitute  indignation  and  abhorrence  for  a  salutary  lesson  and  for 
repentance,  both  in  the  condemned  and  in  the  public;  you  put  cour- 
age, sympathy,  all  that  is  noble  and  great  in  human  nature,  on  the 
side  of  the  victim;  you  rouse  all  energetic  souls  against  society  and 
its  artificial  laws.  Thus  even  the  utility  of  punishment  rests  upon 
its  justice.  The  punishment  is  the  sanction  of  law,  not  its  founda- 
tion.'" All  this  is  as  true  in  the  divine  government  as  in  the  hu- 
man sphere.  And,  whatever  temporary  service  might  be  rendered 
in  the  latter  case,  in  the  divine  government,  the  consequences  would 
be  fatal:  for  here  only  the  loyalty  of  the  heart  will  answer.  This 
never  could  be  secured  by  a  measure  of  injustice  from  which  it  must 
revolt.  And  personal  demerit,  as  the  only  ground  of  justice  in 
punishment,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  all  the  service  of  penalty  in 
the  interests  of  moral  government.  A  true  doctrine  of  public  jus- 
tice never  departs  from  this  principle. 

We  thus  combine  the  two  elements  in  the  exposition  of  public 
justice.  Only  thus  have  we  a  public  justice.  Omitting  the  rec- 
toral  element,  justice  is  purely  retributive,  having  regard  elements 
to  nothing  except  the  punishment  of  sin.  Omitting  combinkd 
the  retributive  element,  justice  is  injustice.  Holding  the  distinc 
tion  of  justice  as  retributive  and  rectoral,  and  combining  the  two 
elements  in  the  one  doctrine,  we  free  the  question  of  punishment 
from  the  perplexity  which  its  history  records.^  The  distinction  is 
valid.  There  are  the  two  offices  of  justice.  But  they  must  never 
be  separated.  Penalty,  as  a  means  in  the  use  of  justice,  has  an  end 
beyond  the  retribution  of  sin;  But,  whatever  its  ulterior  end,  it  is 
just  only  as  it  threatens,  or  falls  upon,  demerit.  And  only  thus 
can  it  fulfill  its  high  office  in  the  interests  of  moral  government. 

It  is  in  the  failure  first  properly  to  discriminate  the  two  offices  of 
justice  in  the  punishment  of  sin  and  the  protection  of  rights, 
and  then  to  properly  combine  the  two  elements  in  the  objections 
one  doctrine  of  punishment,  that  the  rectoral  atonement  answkked. 
exposes  itself  to  really  serious  objections,  which  yet  have  no  validity 

'  Cousin:  History  of  Modern  Philosophy,  vol.  ii,  pp.  279,  280. 
'Cousin:  Psycholoffy,  translated  by  C.  S.  Henry,  pp.  317,  318, 


174  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

against  a  true  construction  of  the  theory.  It  is  against  such  an 
erroneous  construction  that  objections  are  chiefly  urged.  They  are 
specially  urged  against  it  as  embodying,  or  as  assumed  to  embody, 
that  view  of  justice  which  makes  its  strictly  rectoral  ends  the  sole 
account  of  penalty.  "It  is  on  this  false  principle  that  the  whole 
governmental  theory  of  atonement  is  founded.  It  admits  of  no 
ground  of  punishment  but  the  benefit  of  others."  ^  We  represent 
no  such  a  theory.  We  discard  it  as  fully  as  Dr.  Hodge,  or  any 
other  advocate  of  the  satisfaction  atonement.  Our  previous  dis- 
cussions so  certify.  Hence  the  objection  which  the  quotation  im- 
plies is  utterly  void  against  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  as  we  con- 
struct and  maintain  it. 

It  is  in  the  same  line  of  objection  that  we  have  cited  "  a  story  of 
an  English  judge  who  once  said  to  a  criminal,  '  You  are  trans- 
ported, not  because  you  have  stolen  these  goods,  but  that  goods  may 
not  be  stolen.'""  We  would  not  defend  the  propriety  of  such  a 
delivery.  Indeed,  we  think  it  very  injudicious.  A  criminal  should 
feel  that  he  deserves  the  penalty  inflicted  upon  him;  otherwise,  his 
punishment  can  have  no  tendency  toward  his  amendment.  An  im- 
pression of  such  desert  should  also  be  made  upon  the  public  mind, 
as  necessary  to  the  public  benefit.  But  in  neither  case  can  the  nec- 
essary salutary  impression  be  made  where  all  mention  of  punitive 
desert  is  omitted,  or  where  any  reference  to  it  is  entirely  to  dismiss 
it  from  all  connection  with  the  punishment  inflicted.  Yet  there  is 
a  deep  sense  in  which  such  an  utterance  is  true.  It  is  clearly  so  in 
human  jurisdiction.  Nor  is  the  view  either  novel  or  rare.  "  The 
proper  end  of  human  punishment  is,  not  the  satisfaction  of  justice, 
but  the  prevention  of  crimes."^  '^  As  to  the  end  or  final  cause  of 
human  punishments,  this  is  not  by  way  of  atonement  or  expia- 
tion for  the  crime  committed — for  that  must  be  left  to  the  just 
determination  of  the  Supreme  Being — but  as  a  precaution  against 
future  offenses  of  the  same  kind."  * 

There  is  really  no  error  here.  And  all  is  consistent  with  the  doc- 
trine of  punishment  which  we  have  maintained.  Demerit  is  still 
RKALLT  NO  thc  ouly  grouud  of  punishment.  Penalty  falls  upon 
KRROR.  gj^^  ^jjjj  upon  that  only.     But  prominence  is  given  to 

its  exemplary  or  strictly  rectoral  function.  It  is  inflicted  for  the 
sake  of  its  governmental  ends,  yet  only  on  sin  as  deserving  it. 
Against  such  a  doctrine  of  punishment  the  adverse  criticism  of  Dr. 
Hodge  is  utterly  nugatory.     The  same  principles  are  valid  in  respect 

'Hodge:  Systematic  Theology ,  vol.  ii,  p.  579.  ^ Ibid. 

^  Paley:  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  book  vi,  chap.  ix. 

*  Blackstone :  Commentaries  (Shars wood's),  vol.  ii,  book  iv,  pp.  11. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  17,-, 

to  the  divine  administration.  While  divine  penalty  falls  only  upon 
ein,  the  supreme  reason  for  its  infliction  is  in  the  rectoral  ends  with 
which  moral  government  is  concerned.  Nor  is  the  penal  infliction 
a  moral  necessity  apart  from  these  ends.  And  this  distinction 
between  the  ground  and  end  of  penalty,  together  with  such  a  con- 
nection of  the  two  that  penalty  is  never  inflicted  for  the  sake  of  its 
end  except  on  the  ground  of  demerit,  gives  us  the  true  philosophy 
of  punishment. 

With  such  principles,  it  is  easy  to  show  the  fallacy  of  another 
objection  urged  against  the  governmental  atonement.  It  is,  that 
the  theory  of   penalty   which   the   scheme   represents 

•J  r  J^  _  1_  ANOTHKR 

would  justify  the  punishment  of  the  innocent  in  case  groundless 
the  common  welfare  could  thereby  be  the  better  served,  objection. 
"  If  the  prevention  of  crime  were  the  primary  end  of  punishment, 
tlien  if  the  punishment  of  the  innocent — the  execution,  for  exam- 
ple, of  the  wife  and  children  of  a  murderer — would  have  a  greater 
restraining  influence  than  the  punishment  of  the  guilty  murderer, 
their  execution  would  be  just."'  An  advocate  of  the  satisfaction 
theory  should  be  a  little  cautious  how  he  charges  upon  even  a  hypo- 
thetic penal  substitution  of  the  innocent,  lest  he  suffer  in  the  recoil 
of  his  own  objection.  Certainly  he  will  find  trouble  in  the  matter 
of  self-consistency,  for  his  own  principles  render  the  supposed  in- 
stance admissible,  so  far  as  justice  is  concerned.  But  why  the  sup- 
position of  so  impossible  a  thing  ?  Dr.  Hodge  well  knows  that  such 
a  benefit,  by  such  means,  is  utterly  impossible.  And  neither  the 
attainableness  nor  actual  attainment  of  such  a  result  could  render 
such  penal  substitution  just.  This  follows  from  our  doctrine  of 
justice,  as  it  does  not  from  that  of  the  satisfactionists.  In  ours, 
only  personal  demerit  is  a  ground  of  just  punishment ;  while  in 
theirs  mere  guilt,  apart  from  demerit,  and  carried  over  by  imputa- 
tion to  another,  constitutes  in  him  a  ground  of  just  punishment. 
But  we  need  not  further  answer  to  the  arraignment  in  the  quota- 
tion given  above,  for,  whatever  weight  the  objection  which  it  urges 
may  have  against  the  doctrine  of  others,  it  has  no  validity  against 
our  own. 

6.  Remissihility  of  its  Penalties. — There  is  no  sufficient  reason 
why  sin  must  be  punished  solely  on  the  ground  of  its  demerit.  The 
forgiveness  of  the  actual  sinner,  as  a  real  remission  of  penalty  at  tlie 
time  of  his  justification  and  acceptance  in  the  divine  favor,  is  proof 
positive  to  the  contrary.  And,  all  other  ends  apart,  retributive  jus- 
tice may  remit  its  penalty.  It  may  do  this  without  an  atonement. 
Indeed,  it  does  not  admit  of  an  atonement  in  satisfaction  of  such 
'  Hodge:  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  i,  p.  423. 


176  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

remission.  It  is  here,  as  noticed  before,  that  we  part  by  a  funda- 
mental principle  with  the  theory  of  satisfaction.  It  denies  the  re- 
missibility  of  penalty,  as  due  solely  to  the  demerit  of  sin,  on  any 
and  all  grounds.  Hence,  it  requires  for  any  discharge  of  the  actual 
sinner  a  vicarious  punishment  in  full  satisfaction  of  a  purely  retrib- 
utive justice.  We  maintain  the  proper  retributive  character  of 
divine  justice  in  all  the  use  of  penalty  in  moral  administration;  but 
the  retributive  element  of  justice  does  not  bar  the  remissibility  of 
its  penalties.  The  law  of  expediency  determines  the  measure  of 
divine  penalties  within  the  demerit  of  sin.  And  from  their  ends 
in  the  interest  of  moral  government  they  are  remissible  on  such 
ground,  but  only  on  such  ground,  as  will  equally  secure  these  ends. 
This  principle  is  fundamental  with  us,  and  determinative  of  our 
theory  of  atonement. 

7.  Place  f 07'  Atonement. — Thus  the  way  is  open  for  some  substi- 
tutional provision  which  may  replace  the  actual  infliction  of  penalty 
upon  sin.  The  theory  of  satisfaction,  as  we  have  seen,  really  leaves 
no  place  for  vicarious  atonement.  Its  most  fundamental  and  ever- 
asserted  principle,  that  sin  as  such  must  be  punished,  makes  the 
punishment  of  the  actual  sinner  an  absolute  necessity.  But  as 
penalties  are  remissible  so  far  as  a  purely  retributive  justice  is  con- 
cerned, so,  having  a  special  end  in  the  interest  of  moral  govern- 
ment, they  may  give  place  to  any  substitutional  measure  equally 
securing  that  end.     Here  is  a  place  for  vicarious  atonement. 

8.  Nature  of  the  Atonemeiit  Determined. — The  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment in  the  sufferings  of  Christ  follows  necessarily  from  the  above 
principle.  It  cannot  be  of  the  nature  required  by  the  principles  of 
the  satisfaction  theory.  In  asserting  the  absoluteness  of  divine  jus- 
tice in  its  purely  retributive  element,  the  theory  excludes  the  possi- 
bility of  a  penal  substitute  in  atonement  for  sin.  And,  therefore, 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  not,  as  they  cannot  be,  an  atonement 
by  penal  substitution.  But  while  his  sufferings  could  not  take  the 
place  of  penalty  in  the  actual  punishment  of  sin,  they  could,  and 
do,  take  its  place  in  its  strictly  rectoral  end.  And  the  atonement 
is  thus  determined  to  consist  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  as  a  pro- 
visory substitute  for  penalty  in  the  interest  of  moral  government. 

III.  Theory  ajs'd  Necessity  for  Atonement. 

1.  An  Ansiver  to  the  Real  Necessity. — The  redemptive  mediation 
of  Christ  implies  a  necessity  for  it.  There  should  be,  and  in  scien- 
tific consistency  must  be,  an  accordance  between  a  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment and  the  ground  of  its  necessity. 

The  moral  theory  finds  in  the  ignorance  and  evil  tendencies  of 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  177 

man  a  need  for  higher  moral  truth  and  motive  than  reason  affords  ; 
a  need  for  all  the  higher  truths  and  motives  of  the  Gospel.  There 
is  such  a  need — very  real  and  very  urgent.  And  Christ  has  gra- 
ciously supplied  the  help  so  needed.  But  we  yet  have  no  part  of  the 
necessity  for  an  objective  ground  of  forgiveness.  Hence  this  scheme 
does  not  answer  to  the  real  necessity  for  an  atonement. 

Did  the  necessity  arise  out  of  an  absolute  justice  which  must 
punish  sin,  the  theory  of  satisfaction  would  be  in  accord  with  it, 
but  v/ithout  power  to  answer  to  its  requirement,  because  such  a  ne- 
cessity precludes  substitutional  atonement. 

We  do  find  the  real  necessity  in  the  interests  of  moral  govern- 
ment— interests  which  concern  the  divine  glory  and  au-  ^he  case 
thority,  and  the  welfare  of  moral  beings.  Whatever  stated. 
will  conserve  these  ends  while  opening  the  way  of  forgiveness  an- 
swers to  the  real  necessity  in  the  case.  Precisely  this  is  done  by  the 
atonement  which  we  maintain.  In  the  requirement  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  as  the  only  ground  of  forgiveness  the  standard  of  the  divine 
estimate  of  sin  is  exalted,  and  merited  penalty  is  rendered  more 
certain  respecting  all  who  fail  of  forgiveness  through  redemptive 
grace.  And  these  are  the  special  moral  forces  whereby  the  divine 
law  may  restrain  sin,  protect  rights,  guard  innocence,  and  secure 
the  common  welfare.  Further,  the  doctrine  we  maintain  not  only 
gives  to  these  salutary  forces  the  highest  moral  potency,  but  also 
combines  with  them  the  yet  higher  force  of  the  divine  love  as  re- 
vealed in  the  marvelous  means  of  our  redemption.  Thus,  while  the 
highest  good  of  moral  beings  is  secured,  the  divine  glory  receives 
its  highest  revelation.  The  doctrine  has,  therefore,  not  only  the 
support  derived  from  an  answer  to  the  real  necessity  for  an  atone- 
ment, but  also  the  commendation  of  a  vast  increase  in  the  moral 
forces  of  the  divine  government. 

2.  Grounded  in  the  Deepest  Necessity. — We  are  here  in  direct 
issue  with  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  :  for  here  its  advocates  make 
special  claim  in  its  favor,  and  urge  special  objections  against  ours. 
We  already  have  the  principles  and  facts  which  must  decide  the 
question. 

In  their  scheme,  the  necessity  lies  in  an  absolute  obligation  of  jus- 
tice to  punish  sin,  simply  as  such,  and  ultimately  in  a  satisfaction 
divine  punitive  disposition.  But  we  have  previously  ■^i^^- 
shown  that  there  is  no  such  necessity.  We  have  maintained  a  pu- 
nitive disposition  in  God  ;  but  we  also  find  in  him  a  compassion  for 
the  very  sinners  whom  his  justice  so  condemns.  And  we  may  as 
reasonably  conclude  that  his  disposition  of  clemency  will  find  its 
satisfaction  in  a  gratuitous  forgiveness  of  all  as  that  he  will  not  for- 


178  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

give  any,  except  on  the  equivalent  punishment  of  a  substitute.  Who 
can  show  that  the  punitive  disposition  is  the  stronger  ?  We  chal- 
lenge the  presentation  of  a  fact  in  its  expression  that  shall  parallel 
the  cross  in  expression  of  the  disposition  of  mercy.  And  with  no 
absolute  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin,  it  seems  clear  that  but 
for  the  requirements  of  rectoral  justice  compassion  would  triumph 
over  the  disposition  of  a  purely  retributive  justice.  Hence  this 
alleged  absolute  necessity  for  an  atonement  is  really  no  necessity 
at  all. 

What  is  the  necessity  in  the  governmental  theory  ?  It  is  such  as 
FACTS  PRE-  arises  in  the  rightful  honor  and  authority  of  the  divine 
SENTED.  Euler,  and  in  the  rights  and  interests  of  moral  beings 

under  him.  The  free  remission  of  sins  without  an  atonement 
would  be  their  surrender.  Hence  divine  justice  itself,  still  having 
all  its  punitive  disposition,  but  infinitely  more  concerned  for  these 
rights  and  interests  than  in  the  mere  retribution  of  sin,  must  inter- 
pose all  its  authority  in  bar  of  a  mere  administrative  forgiveness. 
The  divine  holiness  and  goodness,  infinitely  concerned  for  these 
great  ends,  must  equally  bar  a  forgiveness  in  their  surrender.  The 
divine  justice,  holiness,  and  love  must,  therefore,  combine  in  the 
imperative  requirement  of  an  atonement  in  Christ  as  the  neces- 
sary ground  of  forgiveness.  These  facts  ground  it  in  the  deepest 
necessity. 

The  rectoral  ends  of  moral  government  are  a  prof  ounder  impera- 
pROKouNDER  tlvc  wlth  justlco  Itsclf  thau  the  retribution  of  sin,  sim- 
iMPERATivE.  ply  ^g  g^^ci^^  Ojjg  stands  before  the  law  in  the  demerit 
of  crime.  His  demerit  renders  his  jiunishment  just,  though  not  a 
necessity.  But  the  protection  of  others,  who  would  suffer  wrong 
through  his  impunity,  makes  his  punishment  an  obligation  of  judi- 
cial rectitude.  The  same  principles  are  valid  in  the  divine  govern- 
ment. The  demerit  of  sin  imposes  no  obligation  of  punishment 
upon  the  divine  Ruler  ;  but  the  protection  of  rights  and  interests 
by  means  of  merited  penalty  is  a  requirement  of  his  judicial  recti- 
tude, except  as  that  protection  can  be  secu.red  through  some  other 
means.  It  is  true,  therefore,  that  the  rectoral  atonement  is  grounded 
in  the  deepest  necessity. 

3.  Rectoral  Value  of  Penalty. — We  have  sufficiently  distin- 
guished between  the  purely  retributive  and  the  rectoral  offices  of 
penalty.  The  former  respects  simply  the  demerit  of  sin  ;  the  latter, 
the  great  ends  to  be  attained  through  the  ministry  of  justice  and 
law.  As  the  demerit  of  sin  is  the  only  thing  justly  punishable,  the 
retributive  element  always  conditions  the  rectoral  office  of  justice ; 
but  the  former  is  conceivable  without  the  latter.     Penal  retribution 


UOVEKNMKNTAL  TIIKORY.  170 

may,  therefore,  be  viewed  as  a  diBtiiict  fact,  and  entirely  in  itself. 
As  such,  it  is  simply  the  punishment  of  sin  because  of  its  demerit, 
and  without  respect  to  any  other  reason  or  end.  But  as  we  rise  to 
the  contemplation  of  divine  justice  in  its  infinitely  larger  sphere, 
and  yet  not  as  an  isolated  attribute,  but  in  its  inseparable  association 
v\ith  infinite  holiness,  and  wisdom,  and  love^  as  attributes  of  the 
vjue  divine  Ruler  over  innumerable  moral  beings,  we  must  think 
that  his  retribution  of  sin  always  has  ulterior  ends  in  the  interests 
of  his  moral  government.  We  therefore  hold  all  divine  punish- 
ment to  have  a  strictly  rectoral  function. 

Punishment  is  the  ultimate  resource  of  all  righteous  government. 
Every  good  ruler  will  seek  to  secure  obedience,  and  all  the  last  rk- 
other  true  ends  of  a  wise  and  beneficent  administration,  sort. 
through  the  highest  and  best  means.  Of  no  other  is  this  so  true  as 
of  the  divine  Euler.  On  the  failure  of  such  means  there  is  still  the 
resource  of  punishment  which  shall  put  in  subjection  the  harm- 
ful agency  of  the  incorrigible.  Thus  rights  and  interests  are  pro- 
tected. This  protection  is  a  proper  rectoral  value  of  penalty,  but  a 
value  realized  only  in  its  execution. 

There  is  a  rectoral  value  of  penalty  simply  as  an  element  of  law. 
It  has  such  value  in  a  potency  of  influence  upon  human  penalty  in 
conduct,  A  little  analysis  will  reveal  its  salutary  forces.  la^- 
Penalty,  in  its  own  nature,  and  also  through  the  moral  ideas  with 
which  it  is  associated,  makes  its  appeal  to  certain  motivities  in  man. 
As  it  finds  a  response  therein,  so  has  it  a  governing  influence,  and  a 
more  salutary  influence  as  the  response  is  to  the  higher  associated 
ideas. 

First  of  all,  penalty,  as  an  element  of  law,  appeals  to  an  instinc- 
tive fear.  The  intrinsic  force  of  the  appeal  is  deter- 
mined by  its  severity  and  the  certainty  of  its  execution; 
but  the  actual  influence  is  largely  determined  by  the  state  of  out 
subjective  motivity.  Some  are  seemingly  quite  insensible  to  the 
greatest  severity  and  certainty  of  threatened  penalty,  while  others 
are  deeply  moved  thereby.  Human  conduct  is,  in  fact,  thus  greatly 
influenced.  This,  however,  is  the  lowest  power  of  penalty  as  a  mo- 
tive ;  yet  it  is  not  without  value.  Far  better  is  it  that  evil  tenden- 
cies should  be  restrained,  and  outward  conformity  to  law  secured, 
through  such  fear  than  not  at  all. 

The  chief  rectoral  value  of  penalty,  simply  as  an  element  of  law, 
is  through  the  moral  ideas  which  it  conveys,  and  the 

,.,.,,,  J-       i       •         .1  1  A  CHIEF  VALUB. 

response  which  it  thus  finds  m  the  moral  reason.     As 
the  soul  answers  to  these  ideas  in  the  healthful  activities  of  con- 
science and  the  profounder  sense  of  obligation,  so  the  governing  force 


180  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  penalty  takes  the  higher  form  of  moral  excellence.  As  it  be- 
comes the  clear  utterance  of  justice  itself  in  the  declaration  of  rights 
in  all  their  sacredness,  and  in  the  reprobation  of  crime  in  all  its 
forms  of  injury  or  wrong,  and  depth  of  punitive  desert,  so  it  con- 
veys the  imperative  lessons  of  duty,  and  rules  through  the  prof  ounder 
principles  of  moral  obligation.  Now  rights  are  felt  to  be  sacred,  and 
duties  are  fulfilled  because  they  are  such,  and  not  from  fear  of  the 
penal  consequences  of  their  violation  or  neglect.  The  same  facts 
have  the  fullest  application  to  penalty  as  an  element  of  the  divine 
law.  Here  its  higher  rectoral  value  will  be,  and  can  only  be, 
through  the  higher  revelation  of  God  in  his  moral  attributes  as  ever 
active  in  all  moral  administration. 

4.  Rectoral  Value  of  Atotiemetit. — The  sufferings  of  Christ,  as  a 
proper  substitute  for  punishment,  must  fulfill  the  office  of  penalty 
in  the  obligatory  ends  of  moral  government.  The  manner  of  ful- 
fillment is  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  service.  As  the  salu- 
tary rectoral  force  of  penalty,  as  an  element  of  law,  is  specially 
through  the  moral  ideas  which  it  reveals,  so  the  vicarious  sufferings 
of  Christ  must  reveal  like  moral  ideas,  and  rule  through  them. 
Not  else  can  they  so  take  the  place  of  penalty  as,  on  its  remission, 
to  fulfill  its  high  rectoral  office.  Hence  the  vicarious  sufferings  of 
Christ  are  an  atonement  for  sin  as  they  reveal  God  in  his  justice, 
holiness,  and  love  ;  in  his  regard  for  his  own  honor  and  law  ;  in 
his  concern  for  the  rights  and  interests  of  moral  beings  ;  in  his  rep- 
robation of  sin  as  intrinsically  evil,  and  utterly  hostile  to  his  own 
rights  and  to  the  welfare  of  his  subjects. 

Does  the  atonement  in  Christ  reveal  such  truths  ?  We  answer. 
Yes.  Nor  do  we  need  the  impossible  penal  element  of  the  theory 
of  satisfaction  for  any  part  of  this  revelation. 

God  reveals  his  profound  regard  for  the  sacredness  of  his  law,  and 
REGARD  FOR  f o^*  thc  iutcrests  which  it  conserves,  by  what  he  does  for 
HIS  LAW.  their  support  and  protection.     In  direct  legislative  and 

administrative  forms  he  ordains  his  law,  with  declarations  of  its 
sacredness  and  authority  ;  embodies  in  it  the  weightiest  sanctions 
of  reward  and  penalty ;  reprobates  in  severest  terms  all  disregard 
of  its  requirements,  and  all  violation  of  the  rights  and  interests  which 
it  would  protect ;  visits  upon  transgression  the  fearful  penalties  of 
his  retributive  justice,  though  always  at  the  sacrifice  of  his  compas- 
sion. The  absence  of  such  facts  would  evince  an  indifference  to 
the  great  interests  concerned  ;  while  their  presence  evinces,  in  the 
strongest  manner  possible  to  such  facts,  the  divine  regard  for  these 
interests.  These  facts,  with  the  moral  ideas  which  they  embody,  give 
weight  and  salutary  governing  power  to  the  divine  law.     The  omis- 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY,  181 

eion  of  the  peual  element  would,  without  a  proper  rectoral  substi- 
tution, leave  the  law  in  utter  weakness. 

Now  let  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  be  substituted  for  the  primary  ne- 
cessity of  punishment,  and  as  the  sole  ground  of  forgive-  thk  sacrifice 
ness.  But  we  should  distinctly  note  what  it  replaces  in  ^^'  christ. 
the  divine  law  and  wherein  it  may  modify  the  divine  administration. 
The  law  remains,  with  all  its  precepts  and  sanctions.  Penalty  is 
not  annulled.  There  is  no  surrender  of  the  divine  honor  and  au- 
thority. Rights  and  interests  are  no  less  sacred,  nor  guarded  in  fee- 
bler terms.  Sin  has  the  same  reprobation ;  penalty  the  same  im- 
minence and  severity  respecting  all  persistent  impenitence  and 
unbelief.  The  whole  change  in  the  divine  economy  is  this — that 
on  the  sole  ground  of  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ  all  who  repent 
and  believe  may  be  forgiven  and  saved.  This  is  the  divine  substi- 
tution for  the  primary  necessity  of  punishment.  While,  therefore, 
all  the  other  facts  in  the  divine  legislation  and  administration  re- 
main the  same,  and  in  unabated  expression  of  truths  of  the  highest 
rectoral  force  and  value,  this  divine  sacrifice  in  atonement  for  sin 
replaces  the  lesson  of  a  primary  necessity  for  punishment  with  its 
own  higher  revelation  of  the  same  salutary  truths  ;  rather,  it  adds 
its  own  higher  lesson  to  that  of  penalty.  As  penalty  remains  in  its 
place,  remissible,  indeed,  on  proper  conditions,  yet  certain  of  exe- 
cution in  all  cases  of  unrepented  sin,  and,  therefore,  often  executed 
in  fact,  the  penal  sanction  of  law  still  proclaims  all  the  rectoral 
truth  which  it  may  utter.  Hence  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  atone- 
ment for  sin,  and  in  the  declaration  of  the  divine  righteousness  in 
forgiveness,  is  an  additional  and  infinitely  higher  utterance  of  the 
most  salutary  moral  truths. '  The  cross  is  the  highest  revelation  of 
all  the  truths  which  embody  the  best  moral  forces  of  the  divine 
government. 

The  atonement  in  Christ  is  so  original  and  singular  in  many  of 
its  facts  that  it  is  the  more  difficult  to  find  in  human 
facts  the  analogies  for  its  proper  illustration.     Yet  there 
are  facts  not  without  service  here. 

An  eminent  lecturer,  in  a  recent  discussion  of  the  atonement,  has 
given  notoriety  to  a  measure  of  Bronson  Alcott  in  the 
government  of  his  school.'  He  substituted  his  own 
chastisement  for  the  infliction  of  penalty  upon  his  offending  j)upil, 
receiving  the  infliction  at  the  hand  of  the  offender.  No  one  can 
rationally  think  such  a  substitution  penal,  or  that  the  sin  of  the 
pupil  was  expiated  by  the  stripes  which  the  master  suffered  instead. 

'  Eom.  iii,  25,  26. 

^  Joseph  Cook  :  Boston  Monday  Lecturp/t,  "  Ortliodoxy."  irp.  156-162. 
14 


182  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

The  substitution  answered  simply  for  the  disciplinary  ends  of  pen- 
alty. Without  reference  either  to  the  theory  of  Bronson  Alcott  or 
to  the  interpretation  of  Joseph  Cook,  we  so  state  the  case  as  most 
obvious  in  the  philosophy  of  its  own  facts.  Such  office  it  might 
well  fulfill.  And  we  accept  the  report  of  the  very  salutary  result, 
not  only  as  certified  by  the  most  reliable  authority,  but  also  as  in- 
trinsically most  credible.  No  one  in  the  school,  and  to  be  ruled  by 
its  discipline,  could  henceforth  think  less  gravely  of  any  offense 
against  its  laws.  No  one  could  think  either  that  the  master  regarded 
with  lighter  reprobation  the  evil  of  such  offense,  or  that  he  was  less 
resolved  upon  a  rigid  enforcement  of  obedience.  All  these  ideas 
must  have  been  intensified,  and  in  a  manner  to  give  them  the  most 
healthful  influence.  The  vicarious  sacrifice  of  the  master  became 
a  potent  and  most  salutary  moral  element  in  the  government  main- 
tained. Even  the  actual  punishment  of  the  offender  could  not  have 
so  secured  obedience  for  the  sake  of  its  own  obligation  and  excellence. 

AVe  may  also  instance  the  case  of  Zaleucus,  very  familiar  in  dis- 
cussions of  atonement,  though  usually  accompanied 
with  such  denials  of  analogy  as  would  render  it  useless 
for  illustration.  It  is  useless  on  the  theory  of  satisfaction,  but  val- 
uable on  a  true  theory. 

Zaleucus  was  lawgiver  and  ruler  of  the  Locrians,  a  Grecian  col- 
ony early  founded  in  southern  Italy.  His  laws  were  severe,  and 
his  administration  rigid  ;  yet  both  were  well  suited  to  the  manners 
of  the  people.  His  own  son  was  convicted  of  violating  a  law,  the 
penalty  of  which  was  blindness.  The  case  came  to  Zaleucus  both  as 
ruler  and  father.  Hence  there  was  a  conflict  in  his  soul.  He  would 
have  been  an  unnatural  father,  and  of  such  a  character  as  to  be 
unfit  for  a  ruler,  had  he  suffered  no  conflict  of  feeling.  His  peo- 
ple entreated  his  clemency  for  his  son.  But,  as  a  statesman,  he 
knew  that  the  sympathy  which  j^rompted  such  entreaty  could  be 
but  transient ;  that  in  the  reaction  he  would  suffer  their  accusation 
of  partiality  and  injustice  ;  that  his  laws  would  be  dishonored  and 
his  authority  broken.  Still  there  vras  the  conflict  of  soul.  What 
should  he  do  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  ruler  and  the  father  ?  In 
this  exigency  he  devised  an  atonement  by  the  substitution  of  one 
of  his  own  eyes  for  one  of  his  son's.' 

This  was  a  provision  above  law  and  retributive  justice.  Neither 
THE  suBSTi-  ^^^^  ^^y  penalty  for  the  ruler  and  father  on  account  of 
TT-riox.  the  sin  of  the  son.     The  substitution,  therefore,  was  not 

penal.    The  vicarious  suffering  was  not  in  any  sense  retributive.    It 

'  "Warburton  :  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  yo\.  i,  pp.  180-184;  Anton:  ClaS' 
sical  Dictionary,  p.  1 492. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  18;j 

could  uot  be  so.  All  the  conditions  of  penal  retribution  were  want- 
ing. No  one  can  rationally  think  that  the  sin  of  the  son,  or  any 
part  of  it,  was  exj^iated  by  the  suffering  of  the  father  in  his  stead. 
The  transference  of  sin  as  a  whole  is  unreasonable  enough ;  but  the 
idea  of  a  division  of  it,  a  part  being  left  with  the  actual  sinner 
and  punished  in  him,  and  the  other  part  transferred  to  a  substitute 
and  punished  in  him,  transcends  all  the  capabilities  of  rational 
thought. 

The  substitution,  without  being  penal,  did  answer  for  the  rec- 
toral  office  of  penalty.     The  ruler  fully  protected  his 

.  THE  RESULT. 

own  honor  and  authority.  Law  still  voiced  its  behests 
and  sanctions  Avith  unabated  force.  And  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of 
the  ruler  upon  the  altar  of  his  parental  compassion,  and  as  well  upon 
the  altar  of  his  administration,  could  but  intensify  all  the  ideas 
which  might  command  for  him  honor  and  authority  as  a  ruler,  or 
give  to  his  laws  a  salutary  power  over  his  people. 

This,  therefore,  is  a  true  case  of  atonement  through  vicarious  suf- 
fering, and  in  close  analogy  to  the  divine  atonement.  In  neither 
case  is  the  substitution  for  the  retribution  of  sin,  but  in  each  for  the 
sake  of  the  rectoral  ends  of  j^enalty,  and  thus  constitutes  the  object- 
ive ground  of  its  remissibility.  We  have,  therefore,  in  this  in- 
stance a  clear  and  forceful  illustration  of  the  rectoral  value  of  the 
atonement.  But  so  far  we  have  presented  this  value  in  its  nature 
rather  than  in  its  measure.  This  will  find  its  proper  place  in  treat- 
ing the  sufficiency  of  the  atonement. 

5.  Oiily  Sufficient  Atonement. — Nothing  could  be  more  fallacious 
than  the  objection  that  the  governmental  theory  is  in  determining 
any  sense  acceptilational,  or  implicitly  indifferent  to  the  principles. 
character  of  the  substitute  in  atonement.  In  the  inevitable  logic  of 
its  deepest  and  most  determining  principles  it  excludes  all  inferior 
substitution  and  requires  a  divine  sacrifice  as  the  only  sufficient 
atonement.  Only  such  a  substitution  can  give  adequate  expression 
to  the  great  truths  which  may  fulfill  the  rectoral  office  of  penalty. 
The  case  of  Zaleucus  may  illustrate  this.  Many  other  devices  were 
also  at  his  command.  He,  no  doubt,  had  money,  and  might  have 
essayed  the  purchase  of  impunity  for  his  son  by  the  distribution  of 
large  sums.  In  his  absolute  power  he  might  have  substituted  the 
blindness  of  some  inferior  person.  But  what  would  have  been  the 
signification  or  rectoral  value  of  any  such  measure  ?  It  could 
give  no  answer  to  the  real  necessity  in  the  case,  and  must  have  been 
utterly  silent  respecting  the  great  truths  imperatively  requiring 
affirmation  in  any  adequate  substitution.  The  sacrifice  of  one  of 
his  own  eyes  for  one  of  his  son's  did  give  the  requisite  affirmation. 


184  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

while  nothiug  below  it  could.  So  in  the  substitutiou  of  Christ  for 
us.  No  inferior  being  and  no  inferior  sacrifice  could  answer,  through 
the  expression  and  affirmation  of  great  rectoral  truths,  for  the  nec- 
essary ends  of  penalty.  And,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  proper  place, 
no  other  theory  can  so  fully  interpret  and  appropriate  all  the  facts 
in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  It  has  a  place  and  a  need  for  every  ele- 
ment of  atoning  value  in  his  substitution. 

6.  True  Sense  of  Satisfaction. — The  satisfaction  of  justice  in 
atonement  for  sin  is  not  peculiar  to  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction, 
technically  so-called.  It  is  the  distinctive  nature  of  the  satisfac- 
tion that  is  so  peculiar.  The  rectoral  atonement  is  also  a  doctrine 
of  satisfaction  to  divine  Justice,  and  in  a  true  sense.  The  narrow 
view  which  makes  the  retribution  of  sin,  simply  as  such,  an  absolute 
obligation  of  justice,  and  then  finds  the  fulfillment  of  its  oftice  in 
the  punishment  of  Christ  as  a  substitute  in  penalty,  never  can  give 
a  true  sense  of  satisfaction.  But  with  broader  and  truer  views  of 
justice,  with  its  ends  in  moral  government  as  paramount,  and  with 
penalties  as  the  rightful  means  for  their  attainment ;  then  the  vicari- 
ous sufferings  of  Christ,  as  more  effectually  attaining  the  same  ends, 
are  the  satisfaction  of  justice,  while  freely  remitting  its  penalties. 
This  is  a  true  sense  of  satisfaction.  Consistently  with  these  views 
we  may  appropriate  the  following  definition,  and  none  the  less 
consistently  because  of  its  appropriation  by  Dr.  Symington,  although 
a  satisfactionist  in  the  thorough  sense  of  the  Eeformed  soteriology  : 
''  By  satisfaction,  in  a  theological  sense,  we  mean  such  act  or  act-? 
as  shall  accomplish  all  the  moral  purposes  which,  to  the  infinite  wis- 
dom of  God,  appear  fit  and  necessary  under  a  system  of  rectoral 
holiness,  and  which  must  otherwise  have  been  accomplished  by  the 
exercise  of  retributive  justice  upon  transgressors  in  their  own  per- 
sons/' ' 

IV.  Theory  and  Scripture  Ijsi^terpretation". 

We  have  previously  stated  that  any  theory  of  atonement,  to  be 
true,  must  be  true  to  the  Scriptures.  It  must  also  fairly  interpret 
the  more  specific  terms  of  atonement,  and  be  consistent  with  all 
truths  and  facts  having  a  determining  relation  to  it.  We  freely 
submit  the  theory  here  maintained  to  this  test.  It  will  answer  to 
all  the  requirements  of  the  case.  Nor  will  an  elaborate  discussion 
be  necessary  to  make  the  fact  clear. 

1.  Tenns  of  Divine  Wrath. — The  Scriptures  abound  in  expres- 

'  John  Pye  Smith  :  On  Sacrifice  and  Priesthood,  p.  387.  Watson  gives  a  sim- 
ilar definition  :  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  139  ;  also  Raymond  :  System- 
atic Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  259. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  Ks.5 

cious  of  the  divine  wrath.'  Our  theory  fully  recognizes  the  fact. 
And  these  terms  of  expression  have  not  their  full  meaning  simply 
as  rectoral  or  judicial.  Nor  have  we  any  need  of  such  a  restric- 
tion. 

There  is  ground  for  a  distinction  as  we  think  of  God  personally 
and  rectorally.     There  is  the  same  distinction  respect-  divixk 

ing  a  human  ruler.     He  has  his  personal  character  and  wrath. 

also  his  rectoral  sphere.  Judicial  obligation  may  constrain  what 
the  personal  feeling  not  only  fails  to  support,  but  sti'ougly  opposes. 
Yet  a  personal  disposition  in  condemnation  of  crime  is  very  proper 
in  a  minister  of  the  law.  It  is  necessary,  and  must  extend  to  the 
criminal,  if  law  is  to  be  properly  maintained.  And  the  denial  of 
all  personal  displeasure  of  God  against  sin  and  against  sinners 
would  be  contrary  to  his  holiness.  Even  with  men,  the  higher  the 
moral  tone  the  profounder  is  the  reprobation  of  sin.  In  the  moral 
perfection  of  God  it  has  its  infinite  depth.  Yet  it  is  not  vindictive 
or  revengeful,  and  co-exists  with  an  infinite  compassion.  These 
dispositions,  so  diverse  in  kind  and  ministry,  are  yet  harmonious 
in  God. 

It  is  in  no  contrariety  to  this,  that,  while  punishment  is  with 
God  in  sacrifice  of  his  disposition  of  clemency,  his  h,  punish- 
punitive  disposition  is  in  moral  support  of  the  sacrifice.  "^^t. 
Without  a  retributive  disposition  in  man,  law  has  no  sufficient 
guarantee  of  enforcement.  Mere'  benevolence  toward  the  common 
welfare  would  not  answer  for  the  protection  of  society  through  the 
means  of  penalty.  We  will  not  allege  such  a  disability  in  the  divine 
benevolence ;  but  it  is  clear  that  without  a  retributive  disposition 
in  God  the  punishment  of  sin  would  impose  a  far  greater  sacrifice 
upon  his  compassion.  And  his  punishment  of  sin  is  not  simply 
from  his  benevolence  toward  the  common  welfare,  nor  from  the  re- 
quirement of  judicial  rectitude,  but  also  from  the  impulse  of  a 
personal  punitive  disposition.  Hence  the  terms  of  the  divine  wrath 
have  a  personal  as  well  as  an  official  sense.  The  doctrine  we  main- 
tain so  interprets  them,  and  thus  shows  their  consistency  with 
itself. 

But  the  divine  wrath,  so  interpreted,  asserts  no  dominance  in  the 
mind  of  God,  and  is  in  fullest  harmony  with  his  love,  jjj  harmonv 
It  has  no  necessity  for  penal  satisfaction  either  in  per-  '^"h  lotk. 
sonal  contentment  or  judicial  rectitude.  As  personal,  it  neither 
requires  nor  admits  a  substitute  in  penalty  as  the  ground  of  its  sur- 
render. It  is  in  the  nature  and  necessity  of  such  a  disposition  that 
any  penal   satisfaction  must  be  found  in  the  punishment  of  the 

'  Psa.  Ixxviii,  31  ;  Jer.  x,  10  ;  "Rom.  i,  18 ;  Eph.  v,  6. 
14 


186  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

actual  sinner.  To  exaggerate  it  into  a  necessity  for  satisfaction,  and 
then  to  find  the  satisfaction  in  the  punishment  of  Christ  as  substitute 
in  penalty,  is  to  pervert  Scripture  exegesis,  and  equally  to  pervert  all 
theology  and  all  philosophy  in  the  case.  In  entire  consistency  with 
his  personal  displeasure,  God  may  and  does  wish  the  absence  of  its 
provocation  and  the  repentance  of  the  rebellious,  that  he  may  save 
them.  And  real  as  the  divine  displeasure  is  against  sin  and  against 
sinners,  atonement  is  made,  not  in  its  personal  satisfaction,  but  in 
fulfillment  of  the  rectoral  office  of  justice.  Hence,  on  the  truth 
in  the  case,  our  theory  fully  interprets  the  terms  of  divine  wrath. 

2.  Terms  of  Divitie  Eighfeonsness. — The  Scripture  texts  which 
in  different  ways  attribute  righteousness  to  God  form  a  very 
numerous  class.'  He  is  righteous;  righteousness  belongeth  unta 
him  ;  and  his  doings  are  righteous.  These  terms,  so  applied,  are 
often  synonymous  with  holiness  ;  often  with  goodness  ;  sometimes 
with  justice ;  and  they  give  no  place  to  the  narrow  view  which 
mostly  restricts  the  divine  righteousness  to  the  retribution  of  sin. 

If,  as  asserted,  the  punishment  of  sin  according  to  its  demerit 
-WHEREIN  is  an  absolute  requirement  of  judicial  rectitude  in  God,. 
RIGHTEOUS.  gQ  1;]^^^  \^Q  jg  righteous  only  as  he  so  punishes,  or  un-^ 
righteous  in  any  omission,  it  follows  that  our  doctrine  will  not  prop- 
erly interpret  these  terms.  But,  as  we  haA^e  previously  shown,  tlie 
divine  righteousness  is  under  no  such  law.  In  that  God  legislates, 
not  arbitrarily  or  oppressively,  but  wisely  and  equitably,  as  with 
respect  to  his  subjects  ;  inflicts  no  unjust  punishment,  but  by 
means  of  just  penalty  protects  all  rights  and  interests  which  might 
suffer  wrong  from  the  impunity  of  sin  ;  and  rewards  his  children 
according  to  the  provisions  and  promises  appertaining  to  the  econ- 
omy of  grace,  he  is  righteous  in  the  truest  and  highest  sense  of  ju- 
dicial righteousness  which  the  Scriptures  attribute  to  him.  But 
these  facts  are  in  the  fullest  accord  with  our  doctrine  of  atonement. 
It,  therefore,  fairly  and  fully  interprets  the  Scripture  terms  of  the 
divine  righteousness. 

3.  Te7'ms  of  Atonement. — The  more  special  terms  of  atonement. 
RECTORAL  AND  ^^  prcvlously  glvcn,  are  atonement  itself,  reconcilia- 
PERSONAL  Dis-  tlou,  propltiatiou,  redemption,  and  the  appropriated 
PLEASURE.  term  substitution.  All  these  terms  have  a  proper  in- 
terpretation in  the  governmental  theory.  As  an  expression  of  the 
office  and  results  of  the  redemptive  mediation  of  Christ  they  are 
properly  rectoral  terms.  Yet  in  a  deeper  sense  they  imply  the  jyer- 
sonal  displeasure  of  God  against  sinners,  and  a  change  in  his  per- 
sonal regard  in  actual  reconciliation.     Now  they  are  no  longer  held- 

'  Gen.  xviii,  25  ;  Psa.  xlviii,  10 ;  Dan.  ix,  7  ;  Eom.  i,  17  ;  Eev.  xvi,  5. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  187 

iu  reprobation,  but  accepted  in  a  loving  friendship.  Yet  the  aton- 
ing Bacrifice  of  Christ  neither  appeases  the  personal  displeasure  of 
God  nor  conciliates  his  personal  friendship.  This  appears  in  the 
fact  that,  although  the  subjects  of  reconciliation  in  the  death  of 
Christ,  yet  as  sinners  we  are  none  the  less  under  the  personal  dis- 
pleasure of  God,  and  so  continue  until,  on  our  repentance  and  faith, 
there  is  an  actual  reconciliation.  The  atonement,  therefore,  is  in 
itself  provisory.  It  renders  us  salvable  consistently  with  the  rector- 
al  office  of  justice.  But  these  personal  regards  of  God  respect  man 
simply  in  his  personal  character,  condemning  him  in  his  sinning, 
and  accepting  him  in  friendship  on  his  repentance  and  obedience. 
Hence,  these  terms  of  atonement,  while  deeply  implying  the  per- 
sonal displeasure  of  God  against  sinners  as  such,  represent  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  not  as  appeasing  such  displeasure,  nor  as  conciliating 
his  personal  favor,  but  as  the  ground  of  his  judicial  reconciliation  ; 
yet  always  and  only  on  such  conditions  of  a  new  spiritual  life  us  to 
carry  with  his  judicial  reconciliation  his  personal  reconciliation  and 
friendship.  Such  is  their  true  sense,  and  such  is  their  interpreta- 
tion in  the  governmental  theory. 

4.  Terms  of  Atoning  Suffering. — Any  issue  on  these  terms  re- 
spects neither  the  intensity  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  nor  the  fact 
of  their  atoning  office,  but  the  question  whether  they  were  in  any 
proper  sense  penally  retributive. 

This  may  be  noted  first,  that  there  is  neither  term  nor  text  of 
Scripture  which  explicitly  asserts  the  penal  substitution 
of  Christ  in  atonement  for  sin.  It  is  a  noteworthy 
fact ;  and  the  assertion  of  it  will  stand  good  until  the  contrary  be 
shown.  As  a  fact,  it  is  against  the  theory  of  atonement  by  penal 
substitution  and  in  favor  of  that  by  vicarious  suffering.  The 
punishment  of  Christ  as  substitute  in  atonement  is  rendered 
familiar  by  frequency  of  utterance  in  theological  discussion  ;  but 
this  is  the  utterance  of  theology,  not  the  assertion  of  Script- 
ure. Exegesis  often  asserts  the  same  thing ;  but  this  is  interpreta- 
tion, not  the  texts  themselves.  They  neither  require  nor  warrant 
the  interpretation.  Redemption  by  vicarious  suffering,  without  the 
penal  element,  will  give  their  proper  meaning.  Xor  is  there  any 
term  or  text  of  Scripture  expressive  of  the  atoning  suffering  of  Christ 
which  this  doctrine  cannot  freely  appropriate  in  its  deepest  sense. 
Yet  we  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  review  all  the  texts  in  question. 
It  will  suffice  briefly  to  notice  a  few  of  the  stronger. 

'*  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  [ajiaQriav)  for  us,"'  A  com- 
mon rendering  of  the  original  is  Kin-offering.     This  has  ample  war- 

'  3  Cor.  V,  21. 


188  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

rant,  and  avoids  the  insuperable  difficulties  attending  any  restrie- 
tion  to  a  primary  or  ethical  sense  of  sin.  That  the  Script- 
ures often  use  the  original  term  in  the  sense  of  sin-offer- 
ing there  is  no  reason  to  question.'  In  the  references  given,  after 
a  description  of  the  sin-offering,  we  have  for  it  the  simple  phrase, 
*'  aiiapria  kari,"  and  so  used  several  times  ;  also,  after  the  precep- 
tive instruction  respecting  the  daily  sacrifice  of  atonement,  we  have 
the  phrase,  ''to  noaxdpiov  to  Ttjg  dfiagriag  Troirjoeig,"  the  last  two 
ivords  being  the  very  same  used  in  the  text  under  review.  On 
dfiaprlaf  as  used  in  the  references  given  in  Leviticus,  Sophocles  says 
that  *^it  is  equivalent  to  Ovala  Trepi  a^apriag."  *  Thus  we  have  in 
Scripture  usage  ample  warrant  for  rendering  the  same  term  in  the 
text  under  review  as  sin-offering.  Nor  do  we  thereby  surrender  any 
vital  truth  or  fact  of  atonement.  Christ  is  all  the  same  a  sacrifice 
for  sin. 

If  this  rendering  be  denied,  what  then  ?  Will  sin  be  held  in  any 
strictly  ethical  sense,  or  under  any  legitimate  definition  of  sin 
proper  ?  Certainly  not.  Christ  could  not  so  be  made  sin.  No 
one  who  can  analyze  the  terms  and  take  their  import  will  so  main- 
tain. Sin  must  still  be  subject  to  interpretation.  Shall  the  ren- 
dering be  the  turpitude  or  demerit  of  sin  ?  Even  satisfactionists 
must  discard  this,  as  they  deny  the  possibility  of  its  transference. 
Shall  it  be  the  guilt  of  sin  ?  This  some  will  allege.  But  guilt  as  a 
punishable  reality  cannot  be  separated  from  sin  as  a  concrete  fact  in 
the  person  of  a  sinner.  Only  punishment  remains  as  a  possible  ren- 
dering. But  here  is  a  like  difficulty,  that  sin  as  punishable  is  un- 
transferable. 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made 
a  curse  (Kardpa)  for  us :  for  it  is  written.  Cursed 
{EncKardpaTog)  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree.'^' 
The  more  literal  sense  is  obvious,  and  is  specially  emphasized  by  the 
citation  in  the  text.  Nor  would  we  conceal  or  avoid  any  force  of 
the  terms  used.  The  curse  of  the  law  on  us,  and  from  which 
Christ  redeems  us,  is  the  law's  condemnation  and  the  imminence  of 
its  penalty.  And  he  redeems  us  by  being  made  a  curse  for  us  in  his 
crucifixion.  But  in  what  sense  a  curse  ?  In  the  literal  sense  of 
the  terms,  and  as  emphasized  by  the  quotation  ?  This  in  the  He- 
brew text  is,  '*  for  he  that  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God."* 

The  doctrine  of  satisfaction  requires  this  full  sense.  If  the  curse 
is  the  divine  punishment  of  sin,  then  whoever  is  so  punished  is 

•  Exod.  xxix,  14,  36  ;  Lev.  iv,  24  ;  v,  9  ;  Hos.  iv,  8. 
'  Greek  Lexicon  of  the  Roman  and  Byzantine  Periods. 
*GaL  iii,  13.  ••  Deut.  xxi.  33. 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  189 

accursed  of  Cod.  !So,  if  our  sins  were  thus  punished  in  Christ,  tiieu 
wae  he  accursed  of  God.  Will  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  hold  the 
literal  sen.se,  with  its  inevitable  implications  ?  Only  in  a  sense 
consistent  with  the  facts  in  the  case  is  he  that  luuigeth  on  a  tree  the 
subject  of  a  divine  curse.  In  many  instances  the  most  holy  and 
beloved  of  the  Father  have  been  so  executed.  They  were  not  ac- 
cursed of  God.  And  along  with  the  fact  of  the  divine  malediction 
we  must  ever  take  the  criminality  of  the  subject.  As  such,  and 
only  as  such,  is  any  one  accursed  of  God.  Thus  it  is  written  of 
odious  criminals,  executed  for  their  crimes  and  then  exposed  in  sus- 
pension upon  a  tree,  that  they  are  accursed  of  God. 

Was  Christ  so  accursed  ?  Did  the  malediction  of  God  fall  upon 
him  in  his  crucifixion  as  upon  a  criminal  in  the  expia-  jj^t  accursed 
tion  of  his  sins  under  a  judicial  punishment  ?  We  ok  god. 
must  depart  from  such  a  sense  of  this  text.  Its  implications  in.  the 
case  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  would  be  yiolative  of  all  truth  and 
fact,  and  repugnant  to  all  true  Christian  sentiment.  We  never 
again  can  go  back  to  Luther's  shocking  exposition  of  the  text ; 
which,  however,  is  in  the  order  of  its  more  literal  sense,  and  within 
the  limit  of  its  inevitable  implications.  And  that  Christ  in  our  re- 
demption submitted  to  a  manner  of  death  which,  as  the  punishment 
of  heinous  crime,  was  in  the  deepest  sense  an  accursed  death,  will 
without  the  curse  and  wrath  of  God  on  him,  or  any  penal  element 
in  his  suffering,  answer  for  all  the  requirements  of  a  proper  exe- 
gesis.' 

"  AVho  his  own  self  bare  our  sins,  raq  ajxapTiag  rj/^iibv,  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree.'"  The  apostle  no  doubt  had  in  BAREorR 
mind  the  words  of  the  prophet  uttered  in  his  marvelous  sins. 
prevision  of  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ.*  Hence  the  two  pas- 
sages here  stand  together.  They  are  much  in  the  style  and  sense  of 
those  previously  considered.  That  they  fully  mean  the  fact  of  an 
atonement  for  sin  in  the  vicarious  suffering  of  Christ  there  is  no 
reason  to  question.  And  but  for  the  insuperable  difficulties  previ- 
ously stated,  we  might  admit  an  element  of  penal  substitution  ;  but 
the  texts  neither  assert  nor  require  it.  Xor  will  the  doctrine  of  satis- 
faction appropriate  the  terms  literally.  Let  it  put  upon  "  our  sins  " 
any  proper  definition  according  to  the  literal  sense,  and  then  answer 
to  the  question,  whether  Christ  really  bore  them  in  his  own  body  on 
the  tree  ?  It  will  not  answer  affirmatively.  From  such  a  sense  the 
strongest  doctrine  of  penal  substitution  will  now  turn  aside,  and 
proceed  to  an  interpretation  in  accord  with  its  more  moderate  views. 

'  Wood :  Works,  vol.  iv,  p.  72  ;  Barnes  :  The  Atonement,  pp.  294-296. 
■1  Pet.  ii,  21.  'Isa.  liii,  4-12. 


190  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

As  previously  stated,  we  have  iu  these  texts  the  fact  of  an  atone- 
FCLLY  APPRO-  nieiit  foi'  slii  111  vicaHous  suffering.  This  fact  justifies 
pRiATED.  the  use  of  their  strongest  terms  of  substitution,  and  an- 

swers for  their  iaterpretation.  AVith  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ  as  the  only  and  necessary  ground  of  forgiveness  and  salva- 
tion, we  can  most  freely  and  fully  appropriate  them.  Nor  do  we 
need  the  penal  element  for  such  appropriation.  And  on  no  other 
doctrine  than  on  that  which  we  maintain  can  it  be  said  of  Christ 
more  truly,  or  with  deeper  emphasis,  that  "he  was  wounded  for 
our  transgressions,  bruised  for  our  iniquities  :  the  chastisement  of 
our  peace  was  upon  him ;  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed  : " 
*'  v/ho  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree." 

Y.  Theoey  and  Scripture  Facts. 

There  are  a  few  special  facts,  clearly  scriptural  and  with  decisive 
bearing  on  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  which  may  be  noted  here. 
They  will  be  found  witnessing  for  the  theory  which  we  maintain, 
and  against  that  in  special  issue  with  it. 

1.  Guilt  of  Redeemed  Sinners. — It  is  an  obvious  fact  both  of  the 
Scriptures  and  of  the  reason  of  the  case,  that  all  sinners  are  under 
divine  condemnation  and  guilt.  There  is  no  exception  in  favor  of 
elect  sinners,  whose  sins  are  alleged  to  have  suffered  merited  punish- 
ment in  Christ  as  substitute  in  penalty.  The  divine  law  condemns 
all  alike  ;  the  penalty  of  justice  threatens  all  alike. 

"Why  should  this  be  true  of  any  one  whose  sins  have  suffered 
merited  punishment  iu  Christ  as  his  accepted  substi- 

AGAINST  ^ 

PENAL  SUBSTI-  tute  ?  It  cauuot  be  true.  Whoever  suffers  the  just 
TCTioN.  punishment  of  his  own  sins  is  thereafter  as  free  from 

guilt  or  answerableness  in  penalty  as  though  he  had  not  sinned.  If 
such  punishment  be  possible  and  actual  by  substitution,  the  same 
consequence  must  follow.  And  we  have  previously  shown,  by  quo- 
tations from  the  highest  authorities  on  the  doctrine  of  satisfac- 
tion, that  justice  itself  imperatively  requires  the  discharge  of  all 
sinners,  the  just  punishment  of  whose  sins  Christ  has  suffered  in 
their  behalf.  And  the  discharge  must  take  place  at  once.  Indeed, 
guilt  is  never  actualized  in  them.  The  punishment  anticipates 
their  sin.  Then  so  must  their  justification  or  discharge.  And  all 
that  is  said  respecting  the  requirement  of  proper  conditions,  or  the 
divine  determination  when  the  discharge  shall  issue,  is  either  irrel- 
evant or  inconsistent,  and  therefore  nugatory.  Guilt  and  punish- 
ment are  specific  facts.  The  penalty  of  justice  once  inflicted,  the 
subject  is  free.  And  on  the  theory  of  satisfaction  redeemed  sinners 
can  no  more  be  answerable  in  penalty  for  their  sins  at  any  time 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  191 

than  Christ  as  their  substitute  could  be  answerable  again  for  the 
same  after  he  has  once  suffered  their  merited  punishment.  "  So  far 
as  the  guilt  of  an  act — in  other  words,  its  obligation  to  punishment 
— is  concerned,  if  the  transgressor,  or  his  accented  substitute,  has 
endured  the  infliction  that  is  set  over  against  it,  the  law  is  satisfied, 
and  the  obligation  to  punishment  is  discharged."^  This  is  consist- 
ent, and  to  the  point. 

The  illogical  jumbling  which  asserts  an  atonement  for  sin  by  act- 
ual penal  substitution,  and  then  makes  it  over  into  a 
kind  of  deposit,  to  be  drawn  upon  or  dispensed  at  the 
option  of  the  depositary,  and  that  may  be  utterly  refused  to  any 
and  all,  should  be  discarded.  It  is  in  utter  contrariety  to  the  Re- 
formed soteriology,  into  which  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  by  penal 
substitution  is  so  deeply  wrought,  as  it  is  to  that  doctrine  itself. 
Yet  we  often  meet  this  very  Jumbling.  Here  is  a  specimen  :  "God 
is  under  no  obligation  to  make  an  atonement  for  the  sin  of  the  world; 
and,  after  lie  has  made  one,  he  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  apply  it  to 
whom  he  j^leases,  or  not  to  apply  it  at  all.  The  atonement  is  his, 
and  he  may  do  what  he  will  with  his  own."*  We  have  no  adverse 
criticism,  except  upon  what  is  so  palpably  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  satisfaction,  and  with  the  citation  just  before  given 
from  the  same  author  and  taken  from  the  same  discussion.  When- 
ever the  payment  of  a  debt  is  accepted,  and  from  whomsoever,  the 
debtor  is  free.  Whenever  a  sin  is  justly  punished,  and  in  whomso- 
ever, the  sinner  is  free.  Any  detention,  either  in  punishment  or  in 
liability  to  it,  is  an  injustice.  And  the  atonement  of  satisfaction 
is  not  a  deposit  which  may  go  to  the  payment  of  our  debt  of  guilt. 
but  the  actual  payment ;  not  something  that  may  be  accounted  to 
us  for  the  punishment  of  our  sins,  but  their  actual  punishment. 
The  making  of  such  an  atonement  is  the  application  of  it.  And 
now  to  represent  it  as  a  deposit  that  may  be  drawn  upon — to  write 
of  its  optional  application,  and  of  its  rightful  refusal  to  any  or  to  all 
— is  to  jumble  egregiously. 

It  is  still  a  fact  of  the  Scriptures,  as  also  of  the  reason  of  the 
case,  that  sinners  as  such,  though  the  subjects  of  re-  guilty  i.v 
demption,  are  in  a  state  of  guilt.  It  is  a  fact  contrary  •'"^ct. 
to  the  theory  of  satisfaction  and  in  its  disproof,  as  we  have  previ- 
ously shown.  But  the  atonement  in  substituted  suffering,  not 
in  substituted  punishment,  and  a  provisory  ground  of  forgiveness, 
not  only  agrees  with  such  a  fact,  but  requires  it.  Therefore,  as 
the  only  alternative  to  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  for  a  real 
atonement  in  Christ,  the  fact  of  guilt  in  redeemed  sinners  witnesses 
'  Shedd  :  Theological  Essays,  pp.  300,  301.  '  Ihirl.,  p.  314. 


192  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

with  all  the  force  of  its  logic  to  the  truth  of  the  governmental 
theory. 

2.  Forgiveness  hi  Justification. — As  sin  in  the  redeemed  has  real 

guilt,  and  no  less  so  on  account  of  the  redemption, 
therefore  Justification,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  must  in- 
clude an  actual  forgiveness  of  sin.  There  must  be  a  discharge  from 
guilt  as  then  real,  a  remission  of  penalty  as  then  imminent.  There 
is  such  a  forgiveness.  Nor  is  it  really  questioned,  except  for  the 
exigency  of  a  system,  by  truly  evangelical  minds.  The  Scriptures 
are  full  of  it.  It  is  in  all  the  warnings  against  impending  wrath  ; 
in  all  the  urgent  entreaties  to  repentance  and  salvation  ;  in  all  the 
requirement  and  urgency  of  faith  as  the  necessary  condition  of  jus- 
tification ;  in  the  deep  sense  of  guilt  and  peril  realized  in  a  true 
conviction  for  sin  ;  in  the  earnest  praj'er  springing  from  such  dis- 
tress of  conscience,  and  importuning  the  mercy  of  heaven  ;  in  the 
peace  and  joy  of  soul  when  the  prayer  is  answered  and  the  Spirit 
witnesses  to  a  gracious  adoption.  Justification  is  not  merely  the 
information,  given  at  the  time  of  such  experience,  of  a  discharge 
from  guilt  long  before  achieved  through  the  merited  punishment  of 
sin  in  a  substitute.  As  up  to  this  time  the  guilt  is  real,  so  the  forgive- 
ness is  real.  And  it  is  much  against  the  theory  of  satisfaction  that 
it  cannot  give  us  a  true  doctrine  of  forgiveness  in  justification.  But 
the  doctrine  which  we  maintain  encounters  no  such  objection. 
Such  an  atonement,  while  a  sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness,  leaves 
all  the  guilt  with  the  sinner  until  his  justification  by  faith.  Then 
his  sins  are  really  forgiven.  So  witness  the  Scriptures  ;  and  so  wit- 
nesses many  a  happy  experience. 

3.  Grace  in  Forgiveness. — The  satisfactionist  thinks  his  own 
■doctrine  pre-eminently  one  of  grace.  Is  it  such  in  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  ?  This  is  the  special  point  we  make  here.  Forgiveness  is 
in  the  very  nature  of  it  an  act  of  grace.  That  the  divine  forgive- 
ness in  our  justification  is  such  an  act  the  Scriptures  fully  testify. 
Still,  it  is  true  that  a  debt  paid,  and  by  whomsoever,  is  not  forgiven  ; 
that  a  penalty  inflicted,  and  upon  whomsoever,  is  not  remitted. 
And  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  absolute  irremissibility  of  pen- 
alty is  the  ground-principle  in  the  theory  of  satisfaction. 

But  since  the  economy  of  redemption  is  of  God  ;  since  it  origi- 
<}RACE  EX-  nated  in  his  infinite  love  ;  and  since  he  provided  the  sac- 
CLUDED.  rifice  in  atonement  for  sin,  is  not  his  grace  in  forgive- 

ness free  and  full  ?  So  the  satisfactionist  reasons.  Nor  would  we 
abate  aught  of  the  love  of  God  in  human  redemption.  There  is  in- 
finite grace  in  his  forgiveness  of  sin ;  but  on  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment which  we  maintain,  and  not  on  that  of  satisfaction.     If  a 


GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  193 

doctrine  is  coustructed,  as  that  of  satisfaction,  in  the  fullest  recogni- 
tion of  a  distinction  of  persons  in  the  divine  Trinity,  and  also  of  the 
specific  part  of  each  in  the  economy  of  human  salvation,  then  it 
must  not,  for  any  after-exigency,  ignore  or  suppress  such  distinc- 
tion. If  in  the  atonement,  and  as  the  only  possible  atonement,  the 
Father  inflicted  the  merited  punishment  of  sin  upon  the  Son,  and 
the  Son  endured  thepunishmentso  inflicted,  then  they  fulfill  distinct 
offices  in  redemption.  Yet  the  fact  is  often  ignored  or  suppressed, 
in  order  to  defend  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  against  the  objection 
that  it  denies  to  the  Father  a  gracious  forgiveness  of  sin.  If,  in 
the  obligation  of  an  absolute  retributive  justice  the  Father  must 
inflict  merited  punishment  upon  sin,  and  if  in  the  atonement 
he  inflicted  such  punishment  upon  his  Son  as  the  substitute  of 
sinners,  then  he  does  not  remit  the  penalty.  No  dialectics  can 
identify  such  infliction  with  remission.  And  where  there  is  no 
remission  of  penalty  there  can  be  no  grace  of  forgiveness.  Hence, 
the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  does  not  admit  the  grace  of  the  Father 
in  forgiveness ;  which  fact  of  grace,  however,  is  clearly  given  in  the 
Scriptures. 

But  this  great  fact  of  grace  is  in  full  accord  with  the  govern- 
mental theory.  A  provisory  atonement  in  substituted  reality  of 
suffering,  rendering  forgiveness  consistent  with  the  rec-  the  grace. 
toral  office  of  justice,  yet  in  itself  abating  nothing  of  the  guilt 
of  sin,  as  its  punishment  must,  gives  place  for  a  real  and  gracious 
forgiveness.  There  is  a  real  forgiveness  in  our  justification,  and 
an  infinite  grace  of  the  Father  therein.  And  the  rectoral  theory, 
agreeing  with  these  facts  so  decisive  of  the  nature  of  redemptive 
substitution,  and  the  only  theory  of  a  real  atonement  so  agreeing, 
gives  us  the  true  doctrine. 

4.  Universality  of  Atonement. — ^We  have  previously  noted  the  fact 
that  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  requires,  on  the  ground  of  consist- 
ency, a  limited  atonement ;  and  also  that  its  universality,  as  given  in 
the  Scriptures,  disproves  the  theory.  But  the  governmental  theory 
is  consistent  with  the  universality  of  the  atonement,  with  a  real  con- 
ditionality  of  its  saving  grace,  and  with  the  fact  that  the  subjects  of 
redemption  may  reject  its  overtures  of  mercy  and  perish.  It  is  the 
only  theory  of  a  real  atonement  in  accord  with  these  facts,  and, 
therefore,  the  true  one. 

5.  Universal  Overture  of  Grace. — Who  will  hesitate  in  such  an 
overture  ?  Who  will  question  its  obligation  ?  But  without  a  uni- 
versal atonement  the  offer  would  be  made  to  many  for  whom  there 
is  no  grace  of  forgiveness  ;  hence  there  could  be  no  such  obliga- 
tion.    And  if  the  atonement  be  for  all,  it  must  be  of  a  nature  to 


19-t  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

render  its  universality  consistent  with  all  the  facts  of  soteriology. 
It  is  such  only  in  the  rectoral  theory. 

6.  Docfritial  Result. — The  fact  of  a  real  atonement  in  Christ  is 
with  the  satisfaction  and  governmental  theories.  Hence  the  ques- 
tion  of  its  nature  is  between  them.  We  appeal  it  to  the  decision  of 
the  facts  given  in  this  section.  Here  are  five  scriptural  facts,  all 
prominent  in  soteriology,  and  all  vitally  concerning  the  very  nature 
of  the  atonement.  They  are  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  sat- 
isfaction, but  in  full  accord  with  the  rectoral  theory.  They  require 
such  an  atonement,  and,  therefore,  certify  its  truth. 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  195 


CHAPTEK  YIII. 

SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

The  substitution  of  Christ  in  suifering  answers  for  an  atonement 
through  a  revelation  of  such  moral  truths  as  give  the  highest  ruling 
power  to  the  divine  law.  It  must,  therefore,  embody  such  facts  as 
will  make  the  necessary  revelation.  Only  thus  can  the  atonement 
have  sufficiency.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  that  we  specially  note 
some  of  these  facts  of  atoning  value.  Authors  differ  somewhat  re- 
specting them.'  This  may  arise,  at  least  in  part,  from  a  difference 
in  the  doctrine.     The  vital  facts  are  clear  in  the  light  of  Scripture. 

I.  The  Holixess  of  Christ. 

1.  A  Xecessary  Element. — A  criminal  cannot  be  a  iiroj^er  media- 
tor. Whoever  dishonors  himself  and  the  law  by  his  own  transgres- 
sion is  thereby  disqualified  for  the  office  of  mediation  in  behalf  of  a 
criminal.  If  human  government  does  not  require  moral  perfection 
for  such  office,  still,  the  mediator  must  not  be  amenable  to  penalty 
on  his  own  account.  And  the  higher  his  personal  righteousness 
and  moral  worth,  the  more  valuable  will  be  his  mediation  as  the 
ground  of  forgiveness.  As  a  mediation,  so  accepted,  must  inculcate 
respect  for  law  and  enforce  obedience  to  its  requirements,  so,  much 
depends  upon  the  moral  worth  of  the  mediator.  And  Christ,  in 
the  atonement,  must  be  without  sin  and  clear  of  all  its  penal  liabil- 
ities.    He  must  be  personally  holy." 

2.  ScrijJture  Vieiv. — The  Scriptures  record,  and  with  frequent 
repetition,  the  siulessness  of  Christ,  and  ever  hold  the  fact  in  vital 
connection  with  his  redeeming  work.  It  is  emphasized  as  fitting 
and  necessary  in  the  atonement,  and  also  as  an  element  of  special 
value.  ^  In  all  the  force  of  its  own  worth  it  is  a  revelation  of  the 
truths  and  motives  which  constitute  the  best  efficiencies  of  moral 
government.  The  vicarious  sacrifice  of  the  sinless  Christ  as  the  sole 
ground  of  forgiveness  scepters  the  divine  law  with  a  ruling  effi- 
ciency, with  a  majesty  of  holiness,  far  above  all  that  the  power  of 

'  Jenkyn  :  The  Extent  of  the  Atonement,  chap,  ii ;  Bruce  :  The  Humiliation  of 
Chn'sf,  p.  341. 

"^  Ullman  :  The  Sinlessness  of  Jesus,  pp.  259-361  ;  Eobert  Hall  :  On  Substitu' 
Hon,  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  269. 

«  3  Cor.  V,  21  ;  Heb.  vii,  26  ;  1  Pet.  iii,  18  ;  1  John  iii,  5. 


lyti  SYSTP].MATIC  THEOLOGY. 

punishment  can  achieve.     Also  his  holiness  gives  its  grace  to  all 
other  elements  of  value  in  the  atonement. 

II.  His  Greatness. 

1.  An  Element  of  Atoning  Value. — Whoever  needs  the  service  of 
a  mediator  is  concerned  to  find  one  of  the  highest  character  and 
rank  attainable.  The  minister  of  the  law  vested  with  the  pardon- 
ing power  is  officially  concerned  therein.  For  the  value  of  the 
mediation  is  not  in  its  personal  influence  with  him,  but  from  its 
rectoral  relations.  He  may  already  be  personally  disposed  to  clem- 
ency, but  lacks  a  proper  ground  for  its  exercise,  so  that  law  shall 
not  suffer  in  its  honor  and  authority.  Such  ground  is  furnished  in 
the  greatness  and  rank  of  the  mediator.  And  the  higher  these 
qualities,  the  more  complete  is  the  ground  of  forgiveness,  or  the 
more  effective  the  support  of  law  in  all  its  rectoral  offices.  There 
is  a  philosophy  in  these  facts,  as  manifest  in  our  previous  dis- 
cussions. Beyond  this,  the  case  may  be  appealed  to  the  common 
judgment. 

There  is  the  same  principle  in  the  redemptive  mediation  of 
Christ.  His  greatness  and  rank  go  into  his  atonement  as  an  ele- 
ment of  the  highest  value.  The  Scriptures  fully  recognize  and 
reveal  the  fact.  It  is  with  accordant  reason  and  design  that  they  so 
frequently  and  explicitly  connect  his  greatness  and  rank  with  his 
redeeming  work. 

2.  An  Infinite  Vahie  in  Christ. — In  the  Scriptures,  to  which 
reference  was  just  now  made  as  connecting  the  greatness  of  Christ 
■with  his  redemptive  mediation,  he  is  revealed  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
essentially  divine ;  as  in  the  form  of  God  and  equal  with  him  in 
glory;  as  the  Creator  and  Euler  of  all  things  ;  as  Lord  of  the  angels.' 
In  him,  therefore,  divinity  itself  mediates  in  the  redemption  of 
man.  Thus  an  infinite  greatness  and  rank  give  rectoral  support  to 
the  law  of  God  in  the  ministry  of  forgiveness  to  repenting  sinners. 
This  is  a  fact  of  infinite  sufficiency  in  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

III.  His  Voluntarixess. 

1.  A  Necessary  Fact. — The  injustice  of  a  coerced  substitution  of 
one  in  place  of  another  would  deprive  it  of  all  benefit  in  atonement 
for  sin.  But  when  the  sacrifice  is  in  the  free  choice  of  the  substi- 
tute, its  voluntariness  not  only  gives  full  place  to  every  other  element 
of  atoning  value,  but  is  itself  such  an  element. 

2.  Christ  a  Voluntary  Substitute. — On  this  fact  the  Scriptures 
leave  us  no  reason  for  any  question.     And  the  frequency  and  full- 

'  John  i,  1-3,  14 ;  Phil,  ii,  6-8  ;  Col.  i,  14-17  ;  Heb.  i,  3,  3. 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  197 

ness  of  their  utterances  respecting  the  freedom  of  Christ  in  the 
work  of  redemption  give  to  that  freedom  all  the  certainty  and  sig- 
nificance which  its  truth  requires.  It  is  true  that  the  Father  gave 
the  Son  ;  that  lie  sent  him  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ;  that  he 
spared  him  not,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all ;  that  he  prepared  for 
him  a  body  for  his  priestly  sacrifice  in  atonement  for  sin  :  but  it  is 
none  the  less  true  that  in  all  this  the  mind  of  the  Son  was  at  one 
with  the  mind  of  the  Father  ;  that  he  freely  and  gladly  chose  the 
incarnation  in  order  to  our  redemption  ;  that  he  loved  us  and  gave 
himself  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  ;  that,  with  full 
power  over  his  own  life,  he  freely  surrendered  it  in  our  redemption. 
And  the  fact  of  this  freedom  is  carried  back  of  his  incarnation  and 
atoning  suffering  to  the  Son  in  his  essential  divinity  and  in  his  glory 
with  the  Father.' 

3.  Tlie  Atoning  Value. — The  voluntariness  of  Christ  crowns  with 
its  grace  all  the  marvelous  facts  of  his  redeeming  work.  His  aton- 
ing sacrifice,  while  in  the  purest  free-willing,  was  at  once  in  an  in- 
finite beneficence  toward  us,  and  in  an  infinite  filial  love  and  obe- 
dience toward  his  Father.  And  the  will  of  the  Father,  in  obedience 
to  which  the  sacrifice  is  made,  so  far  from  limiting  its  atoning 
worth,  provides  for  its  highest  sufficiency  by  opening  such  a  sphere 
for  the  beneficence  and  filial  obedience  of  the  Son.  Roth  have  in- 
finite moral  worth  with  the  Father.  So  he  regards  them,  not  in  any 
commercial  valuation,  but  as  intrinsically  good.  Now  forgiveness 
on  such  a  ground  is  granted  only  on  account  of  what  is  most  pre- 
cious with  God,  and  therefore  a  vindication  of  his  justice  and  holi- 
ness, of  his  rectoral  honor  and  authority,  in  the  salvation  of  repent- 
ing souls.' 

IV.  His  Diyine  Sonship. 

1.  Sense  of  Atoning  Value. — The  nearer  a  mediator  stands  in 
the  relations  of  friendship  to  an  offended  person  the  more  per- 
suasive will  his  intercession  be.  But  this  is  a  matter  of  mere  per- 
sonal influence,  not  of  rectoral  service.  The  person  offended  is 
regarded  simply  in  his  personal  disposition,  not  as  a  minister  of  the 
law,  with  the  obligations  of  his  office  ;  and,  so  far,  the  case  has 
more  affinity  with  the  satisfaction  theory  than  with  the  govern- 
mental. According  to  this  theory  God  needs  no  vicarious  sacrifice 
for  his  personal  propitiation.  His  need  is  for  some  provision  which 
will  render  the  forgiveness  of  sin  consistent  with  his  own  honor  and 
authority  as  moral  Ruler,  and  with  the  good  of  his  subjects.  Hence, 
while  we  find  an  element  of  atoning  value  in  the  divine  Sonship  of 

'  Psa.  xl,  6-8  ;  John  x,  17,  18  ;  Phil,  ii,  6-8  ;  Heb.  x,  5-9. 
'  Robert  Hall  :  On  Substitution,  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  269. 
15 


198  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Christ,  we  find  it  not  in  a  matter  of  personal  influence  with  the 
Father,  but  on  a  principle  of  rectoral  service.  This  value  lies  in  the 
moral  worth  which  the  Sonship  of  Christ  gives  to  his  redeeming 
work  in  the  appreciation  of  the  Father.  The  nature  of  it  will  fur- 
ther appear  under  the  next  heading. 

2.  Measure  of  Value. — The  divine  filiation  of  the  Eedeemer  fur- 
nishes an  element  of  great  value  in  the  atonement.  This  may  be 
illustrated  in  connection  with  two  facts  of  his  Sonship. 

The  divine  filiation  of  the  Redeemer  is  original  and  singular.  It 
is  such  as  to  be  the  ground  of  the  Father's  infinite  love  to 

r'ROl'ND         OF 

THK  FATHER'S  hls  Son.  Ou  nothlug  are  the  Scriptures  more  explicit 
''^^^"  than  on  the  fact  of  this  love.     Therein  we  have  the 

ground  of  the  Father's  infinite  appreciation  of  the  redeeming  work 
of  the  Son.  And  the  truth  returns,  that  forgiveness  is  granted  only 
on  the  ground  of  what  is  most  precious  with  the  Father.  By  all  this 
preciousness,  as  revealed  in  the  light  of  the  Father's  love  to  the 
Son,  his  redemptive  mediation,  as  the  only  and  necessary  ground  of 
forgiveness,  gives  utterance  to  the  authority  of  the  divine  law,  and 
the  obligation  of  its  maintenance  ;  to  the  sacredness  of  moral  rights 
and  interests,  and  the  imperative  requirement  of  their  protection  ; 
to  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  urgency  of  its  restriction.  These  are  the 
very  facts  which  give  the  highest  and  best  ruling  power  to  the 
divine  law.  And  thus  we  have  an  element  of  suflBciency  in  the 
atonement. 

The  redeeming  love  of  God  toward  us  is  most  clearly  seen  in  the 
light  of  his  love  for  his  own  Son.     Only  in  this  view  do 

REVELATION 

OF  HIS  LOTK  we  read  the  meaning  of  its  divine  utterances.^  Why  did 
"^^  ^'^"  the  Father  sacrifice  the  Son  of  his  love  in  our  redemp- 

tion ?  It  could  not  have  been  from  any  need  of  personal  propitia- 
tion toward  us.  The  redeeming  sacrifice,  itself  the  fruit  of  his  love 
to  us,  is  proof  to  the  contrary.  He  gave  his  Son  to  die  for  us  that 
he  might  reach  us  in  the  grace  of  forgiveness  and  salvation.  Why 
then  did  he  so  sacrifice  the  Son  of  his  love?  The  only  reason  lies 
in  the  moral  interests  concerned,  and  which,  in  the  case  of  forgive- 
ness, required  an  atonement  in  their  protection.  But  for  his  regard 
for  these  rights  and  interests,  and,  therefore,  for  the  sacredness  and 
authority  of  his  law  as  the  necessary  means  of  their  protection,  he 
might  have  satisfied  the  yearnings  of  his  compassion  toward  us  in 
a  mere  administrative  forgiveness.  This  he  could  not  do  consist- 
ently with  either  his  goodness  or  his  rectoral  obligation.  And 
rather  than  surrender  the  interests  which  his  law  must  protect  he 
delivers  up  his  own  Son  to  suffering  and  death.  Therefore,  in  this 
'  John  iii,  16 ;  Rom.  viii,  32  ;  1  John  iv,  10. 


SUPFICIENOY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  109 

great  sacrifice — infinitely  great  because  of  his  love  for  his  Son,  and 
therein  so  revealed — in  this  great  sacrifice,  and  with  all  the  empha- 
sis of  its  greatness,  God  makes  declaration  of  an  infinite  regard  for 
tlie  interests  and  ends  of  his  moral  government,  and  of  an  immu- 
table purpose  to  maintain  them.  This  declaration,  in  all  the  force 
of  its  divine  verities,  goes  to  the  support  of  his  government,  and 
gives  the  highest  honor  and  ruling  power  to  his  law,  while  forgive- 
ness is  granted  to  repenting  sinners. 

V.  His  Human  Brotherhood. 

1.  Mediation  must  Express  an  Interest. — A  stranger  to  a  con- 
demned person,  and  without  reason  for  any  special  interest  in  his 
case,  could  not  be  accepted  as  a  mediator  in  his  behalf.  A  pardon 
granted  on  such  ground  would,  in  respect  of  all  ends  of  government, 
be  the  same  as  one  granted  on  mere  sovereignty.  The  case  is 
clearly  different  when,  on  account  of  intimate  relations  of  friend- 
ship, or  other  special  reasons  of  interest,  the  mediation  is  an  expres- 
sion of  profound  sympathy.  Forgiveness  on  such  an  intercession 
is  granted,  not  for  any  thing  trivial  or  indifferent,  and  so  evinc- 
ing an  indifference  to  the  law,  but  only  for  what  is  regarded  as 
real,  and  a  sufficient  justification  of  the  forgiveness.  This  gives 
support  to  law.  It  loses  nothing  of  respect  in  the  common  judg- 
ment, nothing  of  its  ruling  force.  And  the  profounder  the  sym- 
pathy of  the  mediator,  the  greater  is  the  rectoral  service  of  his 
mediation  as  the  ground  of  forgiveness. 

2.  The  Principle  in  Atonement. -r-Qhrhi  appropriates  the  princi- 
ple by  putting  himself  into  the  most  intimate  relation  with  us.  In 
the  incarnation  he  clothes  himself  in  our  nature,  partakes  of  our 
tlcish  and  blood,  and  enters  into  brotherhood  with  us.'  Herein  is 
the  reality  and  the  revelation  of  a  profound  interest  in  his  media- 
tion. The  love  and  sympathy  of  this  brotherhood  he  carries  into 
the  work  of  atonement.  They  are  voiced  in  his  tears  and  sorrows, 
in  the  soul  agonies  of  Gethsemane,  in  the  bitter  outcryings  of  Cal- 
vary, and  are  still  voiced  in  his  intercessory  prayers  in  heaven. 
Men  and  angels,  in  a  spontaneous  moral  judgment,  pronounce  such 
a  mediation  a  sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness,  and  vindicate  the 
divine  administration  therein.  No  shadow  falls  upon  the  divine 
rectitude.  The  divine  law  suffers  no  dishonor  nor  loss  of  ruling 
power.  Thus  the  human  brotherhood  of  Christ  gives  sufficiency  to 
his  atonement.' 

«  John  i,  14  ;  Gal.  iv,  4,  5 ;  Heb.  ii,  11,  14-16. 

'  Eobert  Hall  :  On  Substitution,  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  270. 


200  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

VI.  His  Suffering. 

1.  Extreme  Vieivs. — In  one  view  the  suffering  of  Christ  contains, 

in  respect  of  our  guilt  or  forgiveness,  the  whole  atoning 
value.  Only  substitutional  punishment  so  atones,  and 
this  just  in  the  measure  of  the  penal  suffering  endured.  "  This 
hypothesis  measures  the  atonement  not  only  by  the  number  of  the 
elect,  but  by  the  intensity  and  degree  of  the  suffering  to  be  endured 
for  their  sin.  It  adjusts  the  dimensions  of  the  atonement  to  a  nice 
mathematical  point,  and  poises  its  infinite  weight  of  glory  even  to 
the  small  dust  of  a  balance.  I  need  not  say  that  the  hand  which 
stretches  such  lines,  and  holds  such  scales,  is  a  bold  one.  Such  a 
calculation  represents  the  Son  of  God  as  giving  so  much  suffering 
for  so  much  value  received  in  the  souls  given  to  him ;  and  repre- 
sents the  Father  as  dispensing  so  many  favors  and  blessings  for  so 
much  value  received  in  obedience  and  sufferings.  This  is  the  com- 
mercial atonement — the  commercial  redemption,  with  which  supra- 
lapsarian  theology  degrades  the  Gospel  and  fetters  its  ministers  : 
which  sums  up  the  worth  of  a  stupendous  moral  transaction  with 
arithmetic,  and  with  its  little  span  limits  what  is  infinite.'* '  This 
is  the  atonement  by  equal,  as  well  as  by  identical,  penalty.  It  is 
really  the  atonement  by  equivalent  penalty,  which  varies  the  case 
by  the  admission  of  a  less  degree  of  penal  suffering,  but  only  on  ac- 
count of  its  higher  value  arising  from  the  rank  of  the  substitute, 
while  an  absolute  justice  receives  full  satisfaction  in  behalf  of  the 
elect.  Such  a  doctrine  has  no  lofty  grandeur  nor  profound  phi- 
losophy. It  voids  the  grace  of  God  in  forgiveness.  This  is  one 
extreme. 

In  another  view,  it  is  denied  that  the  suffering  of  Christ,  espe- 
cially in  the  facts  subsequent  to  the  incarnation,  is  essen- 
tial to  the  atonement.  The  author  just  cited  purposely 
omits  *' intensity  of  suffering"  as  a  necessary  element  of  atonement, 
and  does  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God 
is  in  itself  an  act  of  such  condescension  in  behalf  of  sinners  that, 
as  the  only  ground  of  forgiveness,  it  is  a  higher  revelation  of  the 
divine  justice  than  could  be  made  by  their  eternal  subjection  to  the 
merited  punishment  of  sin.     Such  is  the  other  extreme. 

2.  A  Necessary  Elemeyit. — We  are  not  honoring  the  divine  love 
by  an  affected  exaltation  of  one  fact,  however  stupendous,  in  the 
work  of  human  redemption.  Nor  should  we  omit,  as  a  necessary 
element,  what  the  Scriptures  account  to  the  atonement  as  the  vital 
fact  of  its  sufficiency.     That  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  so  vital 

'  Jenkyn:  The  Extent  of  the  Atonement,  pp.  27,  38. 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  TIIP]  ATONEMENT.  201 

is  clear  from  many  texts  previously  cited  or  given  by  reference. 
They  are  even  essential  to  the  atoning  service  of  other  elements  of 
sufficiency.  The  holiness,  greatness,  voluntariness,  divine  Sonship, 
and  human  brotherhood  of  Christ  arc,  in  themselves,  but  qualities 
of  fitness  for  his  redemptive  mediation,  and  enter  as  elements  of 
sufficiency  into  the  atonement  only  as  he  enters  into  his  sufferings. 
Without  his  sufferings  and  death  there  is  really  no  atonement.  This 
is  the  truth  of  Scripture. 

3.  A?i  Infinite  Sufficiency. — The  sufferings  of  Christ,  which  go 
into  the  atonement  as  a  revelation  of  God  in  his  regard  for  the 
principles  and  ends  of  his  moral  government,  and  in  his  immutable 
purpose  to  maintain  them,  give  to  it  an  infinite  sufficiency.  We 
cannot  fathom  these  sufferings.  We  get  the  deeper  sounding  only 
as  we  hold  them  in  association  with  the  greatness  and  rank  of 
Christ  himself. 

The  incarnation  itself  is  a  great  fact  of  atoning  value  in  the  re- 
demptive mediation  of  Christ.  This  is  clear  in  our 
doctrine,  however  difficult  it  may  be  for  that  of  satis- 
faction so  to  appropriate  it.  It  must  go  into  such  an  atonement,  if 
at  all,  either  as  a  vicarious  punishment  or  as  a  fact  of  vicarious 
righteousness.  The  theory  finds  atonement  in  nothing  else.  Now 
the  incarnation  itself  could  not  be  a  fact  of  penal  substitution, 
because  it  could  not  be  a  punishment.  Could  it  be  a  fact  of 
vicarious  obedience,  and  imputable  to  the  elect  ?  We  know 
not  the  Scripture  exegesis  nor  the  philosoj)hy  of  the  fact  which 
can  so  interpret  it.  It  is  not  such  because  a  fact  of  obedience. 
The  subordination  of  the  Son  puts  all  his  acts,  even  those  of  crea- 
tion and  providence,  into  the  sphere  of  filial  obedience.  And  we 
might  as  well  account  these  acts  an  imputable  personal  righteous- 
ness in  atonement  for  the  elect  as  so  to  account  his  obedience  in  the 
free  choice  of  the  incarnation.  So  difficult,  if  not  absolutely  im- 
possible, is  it  for  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  appropriate  the 
great  fact  of  the  incarnation  as  an  element  of  atonement.  Our 
doctrine  has  no  difficulty  in  the  appropriation.  We  require  it  to 
be  neither  a  fact  of  penal  substitution  nor  one  of  imputable  personal 
righteousness.  It  goes  into  the  atonement  as  one  of  the  great  facts 
of  condescension  and  sacrifice  in  the  work  of  redemption. 

The  humiliation  of  Christ  in  the  incarnation  thus  becomes  a  great 
fact  of  sufficiency  in  the  atonement.     His  condescension 

r.  1  T    1  1  TT  HUMILIATION. 

to  the  form  of  an  angel  would  have  been  much.     How 
infinitely  more  the  actual  condescension  !     There  are  two  marvelous 
facts  :   the  self -emptying — kavrov  sKevcjoe — or  self-divestment  of  a 
rightful  glory  in  equality  with  God,  and  an  assumption,  instead, 
15  * 


202  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  form  of  a  servant  in  the  likeness  of  men.'  The  Son  of  God, 
the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,^ 
and  dwelling  in  the  glory  of  the  Father/  condescends  to  the  plane 
of  humanity,  and  dwells  here  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh." 

The  incarnation  is  not  the  limit  of  the  humiliation  and  sacrifice 
of  Christ  :  "And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he 
humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross."  ^  What  scenes  are  disclosed  in  Geth- 
semane  and  on  Calvary  !  Burdens  of  sorrow,  depths  of  woe,  inten- 
sities of  agony  !  An  awful  mystery  of  suffering  !  At  such  a  cost  the 
Saviour  redeems  the  world. 

Nor  have  we  the  truest,  deepest  sense  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
except  in  the  fact  that  he  endured  them  as  the  Tliean- 
thropos.  AVith  the  doctrine  of  a  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures  in  a  unity  of  personality  in  Christ,  and  that  in 
the  incarnation  he  was  truly  the  God-man,  we  know  not  either  the 
theology  or  philosophy  which  may  limit  his  sufferings  to  a  mere 
human  consciousness.  "With  the  impassivity  of  his  divine  nature  in 
the  incarnation  and  atonement,  many  texts  of  Scripture,  fraught 
with  infinite  treasures  of  grace  and  love,  would  be  little  more  than 
meaningless  words.®  On  such  a  principle  their  exegesis  would  be 
superficial  and  false  to  their  infinitely  deeper  meaning.  The  divine 
Son  incarnate,  and  so  incarnate  in  human  nature  as  to  unite  it  with 
himself  in  personal  unity,  could  suffer,  and  did  suffer  in  the  re- 
demption of  the  world.' 

Such  are  the  facts  which  combine  in  the  atonement,  and,  on  the 
principles  previously  explained,  give  to  it  an  infinite  sufficiency. 
They  are  God's  revelation  of  himself  in  his  moral  government,  for 
the  vindication  of  his  justice  and  law  in  the  ministry  of  forgive- 
ness, for  the  restraint  of  sin,  and  for  the  protection  of  the  rights  and 
interests  of  his  subjects.  So  much  has  he  done,  and  so  much  re- 
quired, that  forgiveness  might  be  consistent  with  these  great  ends. 
And  now  while  on  such  ground,  but  only  on  such,  repenting  souls 
are  forgiven  and  saved,  he  omits  no  judicial  requirement,  and  sur- 
renders no  right  nor  interest  either  of  himself  or  his  subjects. 

'  Phil,  ii,  6,  7.       « Heb.  i,  3.       ^  John  xvii,  5.       *  Eom.  viii,  3.       ^  Phil,  ii,  8. 

«  Acts  XX,  28;  Rom.  viii,  32 ;  Phil,  ii,  6-11  ;  Col.  i,  13-17 ;  Heb.  i,  3  ;  ii,  9, 
14-18;  Eev.  i,  5,  6;  v,  &-13. 

'  Shedd  :  Theological  Essays,  p.  272  ;  Raymond  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  275-282. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  ATONEMENT.  203 


CHAPTER  IX. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  ATONEMENT. 

We  must  not  omit  all  notice  of  the  stock  objections  to  the  atone- 
ment. Yet  they  have  little  relevancy  as  against  the  doctrine  which 
we  maintain,  and,  therefore,  require  no  elaborate  refutation. 

I.  An  Irrational  Scheme. 
Opponents  of  fundamental  Christian  truth  are  strong  on  the 
rational,  and  especially  on  the  irrational.  A  glance  of  their  mar- 
velous philosophic  acumen  detects  the  disconformity  of  a  doctrine 
to  reason.  This  is  conclusive  against  it.  Thus  the  atonement  is 
summarily  dismissed  as  an  irrational  scheme. 

1.  A  Pretentious  Assumption. — Such  an  objection  little  becomes 
the  limitation  of  human  reason.  In  our  own  resources  we  but 
feebly  grasp  the  principles  and  requirements  of  divine  moral  govern- 
ment, and,  therefore,  cannot  pronounce  against  either  a  necessity 
for  the  atonement,  or  the  wisdom  of  its  measures,  or  the  beneficence 
of  its  results.  Human  reason,  all-unequal  to  its  devising,  is  all- 
incompetent  to  a  conclusive  judgment  against  it.  And  while  with 
us  the  government  of  a  municipality  is  still  a  perplexing  problem, 
we  do  but  arrogantly  pronounce  against  the  wisdom  of  the  atone- 
ment in  the  infinitely  broader  sphere  of  divine  moral  government. 
The  more  certainly  is  this  true  since  the  deliverances  of  the  high- 
est reason  accord  to  the  economy  of  redemption  in  Christ  an  infi- 
nite excellence  and  wisdom. 

2.  Analogies  of  Providence  a  Vindication. — If  the  scheme  of 
atonement  is  in  analogy  to  the  general  course  of  providence,  the 
fact  wholly  voids  this  objection,  except  on  the  broad  ground  that 
the  general  course  of  providence  is  irrational.  But  such  an  assump- 
tion would  bar  all  title  to  a  respectful  hearing  on  the  part  of  any 
one  professing  faith  in  Christianity,  or  even  in  God. 

The  vicarious  principle  is  the  most  common  law  of  human  society 
in  every  form  of  its  constitution.'  And  it  is  no  arbi-  yicARior!* 
trary  appointment,  but  springs  inevitably  from  the  prixciplk. 
providential  relations  of  human  life.  In  the  family,  in  society,  in 
the  commonwealth  one  serves  another,  suffers  for  another.  One 
'  Butler  :  Analogy  of  Religion,  part  ii,  chap.  T. 


204  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

takes  upon  himself  labor  and  suffering  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
another,  averts  evil  from  him,  and  brings  him  good.  Here  is  the 
vicarious  principle.     Human  life  is  full  of  it. 

Such  is  the  mediation  of  Christ  in  vicarious  suffering.     Nor  is 
the  principle  really  changed  by  the  fact  that  his  suffer- 

IN  ATONEMENT.      .  ,  .     ,  .  „  ,  ,      . 

mgs  meet  a  special  exigency  oi  moral  government  in 
order  to  the  forgiveness  and  salvation  of  sinners.  Any  objection 
respecting  the  justice  of  the  case  will  be  met  elsewhere,  and  really 
is  not  pertinent  here,  because  this  exigency  of  moral  government 
is  met  in  the  mediation  of  Christ  by  vicarious  suffering,  not  by 
substituted  punishment.  Only  the  latter  element  could  carry  the 
atonement  out  of  such  analogy  to  very  many  vicarious  facts  of 
human  life  as  to  deny  it  the  vindication  of  that  analogy.  And 
neither  revelation,  nor  the  general  course  of  providence,  nor  reason 
itself,  pronounces  the  scheme  of  vicarious  atonement  irrational. 

11.  A  YioLATiox  OF  Justice. 
No  objection  has  been  urged  either  more  violently  or  jaersistently 
against  the  atonement  than  this.      A  few  words,  however,  will  an- 
swer for  all  the  defense  required  of  us. 

1.  JVb  Infringement  of  Rights. — Injustice  comes  with  the  re- 
fusal of  dues,  with  the  deprivation  of  lawful  possessions  or  inalien- 
able rights,  with  wrongful  injury  or  unmerited  punishment,  not 
otherwise.  Such  facts  are  a  violation  of  justice,  because  a  violation 
of  rights.  Without  this  there  can  be  no  injustice.  On  this 
ground  we  have  an  easy  answer  to  the  objection  of  injustice  in  the 
vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ.  Others  may  answer  for  their  own 
doctrine. 

2.  Analogy  of  Vicarious  Suffering. — Men  often  endure  toil  and 
suffering,  and  jeopard  life  itself  in  behalf  of  others.  They  do  this 
electively,  cheerfully,  not  of  coercion.  Do  they  suffer  any  viola- 
tion of  rights  thereby  ?  Is  any  injustice  done  them  ?  Does  their 
own  reason  or  the  common  moral  judgment  so  pronounce  ?  Surely 
not.  Indeed,  both  approve  such  vicarious  sacrifice,  and  reprehend 
its  refusal  on  proper  exigency. 

3.  Tlie  Atonement  Clear  of  Injustice. — That  the  vicarious  suf- 
ferings of  Christ  meet  a  special  requirement  of  moral  government 
in  order  to  our  forgiveness  and  salvation  introduces  no  element  of 
injustice.  Nor  did  Christ,  in  all  his  relations  to  the  will  of  the 
Father  respecting  the  deepest  sufferings  which  he  endured,  ever 
evince  any  sense  of  injury  or  wrong.  Nor  was  there  any  wrong  to 
him  :  for,  while  he  so  suffered  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Father, 
it  was  none  the  less  his  own  election  in  the  purest  freedom.     And 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  ATONEMENT.  205 

it  is  no  punishment  of  one  for  the  sin  of  another.  Therefore  all 
injustice  is  excluded. 

4.  Vantage-ground  against  the  Moral  Theory. — This  is  a  common 
objection  with  those  who  maintain  the  moral  theory  of  atonement. 
We  claim  a  position  of  the  highest  advantage  against  them.  They 
admit  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  as  consequent  upon  his  re- 
demptive mission,  and  as  for  men  in  this  sense.  They  admit  the 
severity  of  his  sufferings  and  the  shameful  manner  of  his  death. 
But,  on  their  scheme,  his  extreme  suffering  is  only  incidental  to  his 
saving  work,  while  on  ours  it  is  the  necessary  ground  of  forgiveness 
and  salvation.  Therefore  our  doctrine  will  vindicate  such  a  divine 
economy,  while  theirs  will  not. 

The  real  problem  is  in  such  suffering  of  the  innocent  in  behalf  of 
the  guilty.     "  State  this  fact  as  indeterminately  as  you 

•      •  »/  •/  THF    PROBLFM 

please  ;  rigidly  adhere  to  the  coldest  and  most  undefin- 
ing  forms  of  language  ;  allow  only  that  the  innocent  suffered  for  the 
advantage  of  the  guilty  ;  what  possible  abatement  of  the  charge  of 
injustice  do  you  supply  ?  The  difficulty,  if  any — the  mystery,  the 
awful  mystery — remains  in  full  proportion  behind  the  flimsy  cloud. 
That  mystery  is,  the  innocent,  the  virtuous,  the  perfect  One,  has 
borne  tremendous  agony.  This  is  the  point  of  startling  wonder, 
whatever  the  result :  of  wonder  to  be  diminished  only  by  the  exi- 
gency, the  mighty  good  accruing,  not  otherwise  to  be  attained.'"' 
The  profound  exigency  is  the  vindicatory  fact.  Intense  vicarious 
suffering,  arising  in  a  specially  providential  economy,  and  without 
a  sufficient  reason  in  attainable  good,  is  of  impossible  defense.  Such 
is  the  case  with  the  moral  view.  But  the  doctrine  of  a  real  atone- 
ment in  Christ,  with  the  necessity  of  his  redemptive  sufferings  as 
the  means  of  salvation,  and  the  infinite  good  attained,  gives  us  the 
clearest  and  fullest  theodicy. 

III.  A  Releasement  from  Duty. 

This  objection,  if  intelligently  and  honestly  made,  must  have  in 
view  some  particular  doctrine  of  atonement.  Otherwise  it  has  nei- 
ther pertinence  nor  force,  whatever  weight  logical  validity  would 
give  it. 

1.  Fatal,  if  Valid. — Xo  doctrine  of  atonement  could  stand 
against  such  an  objection  if  grounded  in  truth.  But  duty  has  no 
surer  ground,  and  no  more  imperative  behest  respecting  all  that 
constitutes  the  highest  moral  and  religious  worth,  than  in  the 
atonement  itself.  Hence  any  doctrine  really  open  to  such  an  objec- 
tion must  be  in  error.  Nor  will  the  history  of  doctrines  permit 
'  Gilbert  :  The  Christian  Atonement,  p.  93. 


206  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  assertion  that  no  one  has  been  so  open.  Antinomianisni  itself 
has  a  place  in  that  history.  And  any  commercial  theory,  or  doc- 
trine of  atonement  by  absolute  substitution  in  precept  and  penalty, 
is  logically  open  to  this  objection,  however  its  advocates  disclaim 
the  implication.  A  punishment  so  endured  for  us,  and  a  righteous- 
ness so  wrought  on  our  account,  cannot  again  be  required  of  us 
under  any  claim  of  justice  or  sanction  of  law.  But  the  doctrine 
which  we  maintain  is  not  answerable  in  such  a  case. 

2.  Nugatory  against  the  True  Doctrine. — On  a  true  doctrine  the 
atonement  in  Christ  is  simply  the  ground  of  forgiveness,  not  the 
merited  punishment  of  sin.  Hence  we  are  guilty  all  the  same, 
though  now  with  the  privilege  of  forgiveness  and  salvation.  And 
for  such  a  result  through  redemptive  grace  there  is  required  a  true 
repentance  for  sin  and  a  true  faith  in  Christ  ;  and,  as  the  condition 
of  his  continvied  favor,  a  true  obedience  to  his  will.  A  measure  of 
forgiveness  in  behalf  of  rebels  would  surely  be  no  discharge  from 
the  obligation  and  requirement  of  future  loyalty,  and  especially 
when  the  continuance  of  the  restored  franchisements  is  conditioned 
on  fidelity  in  future  loyalty.  Such  are  the  facts  respecting  the 
atonement.  And  in  all  its  truth  and  lesson  it  makes  duty  spe- 
cially imperative  and  responsible,  and  presses  its  claim  with  a  weight 
of  obligation  and  a  power  of  motive  peculiar  to  itself.  It  is,  there- 
fore, wholly  and  forever  clear  of  this  objection. 

IV.  An  Aspersiox  of  Divixe  Goodness. 

This,  also,  must  have  in  view  some  special  doctrine  of  atonement. 
Otherwise,  it  is  so  manifestly  groundless  that  it  can  hardly  be  a 
mere  fallacy,  and  must  be  a  sophistry  ;  not  a  mere  error  in  its  logic, 
but  an  intentional  error. 

1.  Reason  of  Laio  and  Penalty. — Whence  comes  law  ?  And 
Avherefore  penalty  ?  Is  their  origin  in  the  cruelty  of  rulers  ?  Is 
revengefulness  the  moving  impulse  of  legislators  and  ministers  of 
law  ?  Is  vindictiveness  the  inspiration  of  punishment  ?  Is 
iraplacableness  the  sole  restraint  of  the  pardoning  power  ?  Xo 
man  can  think  so.  The  public  good  requires  both  law  and 
penalty.  Here  is  their  source.  This  fact  does  not  give  us  the 
highest  principles  of  divine  moral  government,  yet  has  enough 
analogy  for  illustration.  Rulers  in  human  government,  if  by  per- 
sonal qualities  well  fitted  for  their  ofiice,  cherish  infinitely  higher 
sentiments  than  the  present  objection  would  imply  in  application  to 
them.  With  rulers  of  the  highest  and  best  qualities  clemency 
would  often  release  the  criminal  when  the  public  good  constrains 
his  punishment.     And  they  should  have  the  honor  of  a  wise  and 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  ATONEMENT.  207 

beneficent  administration  rather  than  suffer  the  reproach  of  vindic- 
tiveness. 

2.  No  Aspersion  of  Divine  Goodness. — Now  if  the  punitive 
ministries  of  justice  imply  no  vindictiveness,  but  evince  the  wisdom 
and  beneficence  of  government,  how  does  the  refusal  of  pardon  so 
imply  ?  Then  how  could  the  requirement  of  such  provision  as 
would  render  forgiveness  consistent  with  the  ends  of  government 
show  any  implacability?  And  then  how  does  the  atonement,  as 
necessary  to  the  consistency  of  forgiveness  with  the  infinite  interest 
of  moral  government,  impeach  the  clemency  of  the  divine  Euler, 
or  asperse  his  goodness?  When  this  is  shown  other  questions  may 
be  asked.     Until  then  they  are  not  necessary. 

3.  Divine  Love  Magnified. — The  atonement  has  its  original  in 
the  divine  love.  Nor  has  it  any  other  possible  source.  The  human 
mind  is  powerless  for  the  original  conception  of  such  a  scheme. 
Nor  could  it  have  birth  in  the  mind  of  angel  or  archangel,  but  in 
God  only.  And  with  him  its  primary  impulse  must  arise  in  his  love. 
It  could  not  arise  in  any  perfection  of  knowledge,  or  power,  or  jus- 
tice, or  holiness.  There  must  be  a  profound  sympathy  with  human 
woe.  An  infinite  compassion  must  yearn  over  the  miseries  of  sin. 
Love  only  can  answer  to  such  requirement.  "  God  is  love."  ' 
Herein  is  the  primary  impulse  of  human  redemption,  and  the  ever- 
active  force  in  all  its  infinite  sacrifices.  To  this  one  source  the 
Scriptures  ever  trace  it. 

And  the  divine  love,  so  moving  to  an  atonement  for  sin,  must  meet 
the  sacrifices  which  it  requires.  These  are  infinitely  great.  A 
plan  of  human  redemption  must  be  adjusted  to  the  profoundest  in- 
terests of  the  moral  universe.  The  infinite  exigency  reaches  into 
heaven  for  the  Son  of  the  Father's  love.  He  must  be  the  atoning 
sacrifice  ;  he  must  be  delivered  up  to  humiliation  and  death.  The 
divine  love  answers  to  the  infinite  exigency.^  And  while  the  cross 
stands  as  the  symbol  of  the  atonement,  and  it  is  written  "  God  so 
loved  the  world,"  that  atonement  casts  no  aspersion  upon  his  clem- 
ency, but  infinitely  magnifies  his  love. 

'  1  John  iv,  16.  ^  Jq)^-^  jij^  jg  .  -^^^^  y^  g_io  ;  viii,  32  ;  1  John  iv,  10. 


208  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  X. 

A    LESSON    FOR    ALL    INTELLIGENCES. 

I.  Relations  of  the  Atonement. 

1.  A  Salvation/or  Man  Only. — Speculative  and  fanciful  minds, 
forgetting  the  verities  of  Scripture^  may  reach  the  thought  not  only 
of  the  sufficiency,  but  also  of  the  actuality,  of  an  atonement  for 
moral  beings  other  than  men.'  The  Scriptures,  however,  limit  it  to 
the  human  race.  Nor  would  any  superabundance  of  its  grace,  nor 
any  further  prevalence  of  sin,  warrant  the  inference  of  a  wider  exten- 
sion. There  are  other  orders  under  the  power  and  curse  of  sin.'^ 
Here  is  the  prostration  of  lofty  powers,  the  corruption  of  once  holy 
natures,  and  an  awful  lapse  of  moral  beings  from  the  highest  hap- 
piness into  the  profoundest  woe.  Nor  have  they  any  power  of  self- 
recovery.  There  is,  therefore,  in  their  case  all  the  need  of  redemp- 
tion arising  out  of  an  utter  moral  ruin.  Nor  will  the  divine  love 
allow  the  supposition  that,  however  just  their  doom,  they  have 
fallen  below  the  reach  of  its  pity.  Yet  the  Scriptures  give  no  inti- 
mation of  an  atonement  for  them,  but  a  contrary  one.  Christ 
becomes  our  brother  by  an  incarnation  in  our  nature  that  through 
death  he  might  redeem  us.^  And  we  have  this  significant  utterance 
of  limitation  :  "  For  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels; 
but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham.''  ^  The  passage,  viewed 
contextually  and  in  its  own  terms,  clearly  limits  redemption  in  its 
directness  and  actuality  to  the  human  race. 

2.  Broader  Relatio7i  to  Moral  Beings. — An  atonement  in  the  sac- 
rifice of  Christ,  while  for  man  only,  may  yet  have  a  lesson  of  pro- 
found moral  truth  for  other  and  for  all  intelligences.^  It  is  such  a 
truth,  and  of  such  moral  significance,  that  it  must  deeply  interest 
all  moral  beings  to  whom  a  knowledge  of  it  may  come. 

And  the  notion  of  a  wide  extension  of  such  information  is  no  con- 
wiDELT  jecture,  nor  even  a  mere  rational  idea.     Rational  it  is  ; 

KNOWN.  fQj.  ^jjg  atonement  is  too  great  a  truth,  and  too  broad 

and  intimate  in  its  relations,  for  any  narrow  limitation.  The  long 
preparation  for  the  redeeming  advent  was  known  in  heaven  as  on 
earth.     Angels  often  appear  amid  the  scenes  of  that  preparation. 

'  As  Origen  did.       "  2  Pet.  ii,  4  ;  Jude  6.       ^  Heb.  ii,  14,  15.        *  Heb.  ii,  16. 
5  Gilbert  :  The  Christian  Atonement,  pp.  21&-220,  352,  353. 


A  LESSON  FOR  ALL  INTELLIGENCES.  209 

The  redeeming  Lord  conies  forth  from  tlie  midst  of  their  adoring 
myriads.  Many  are  with  him  in  the  lowly  scenes  of  his  humiliation, 
deeply  interested  in  him  and  in  his  great  work.  They  form  his  tri- 
umphal escort  in  the  ascension,  and  all  their  hosts,  in  glad  acclaim, 
welcome  his  return.  Here  are  means  and  evidences  of  a  widely 
extended  knowledge  of  our  redemption.  And  the  fact  of  such  a 
knowledge  has  a  sure  ground  in  the  Scriptures.'  The  references 
given  are  sufficient  for  the  point  made,  though  there  are  many 
other  texts  and  facts  of  like  import.^ 

Nor  need  we  have  any  perplexity  respecting  either  the  possibility 
or  the  means  of  such  universal  information.     Moral 

-.  J.         1£       J.     ■       \      1-  1       -I.     J-  i.     AMPLE   MEANS. 

beings,  ever  steadfast  m  holiness  and  obedience,  cannot 
be  in  entire  isolation,  however  remote  their  dwelling-places.  They 
have  a  common  center  of  union  and  intercourse  in  God,  as  the  one 
Creator  and  Father  of  all.  "  What,  then,  can  He  who  made  them 
be  at  any  loss  how  to  instruct  them  ?  Does  one  sun  dart  his  beams 
above,  below,  around,  as  well  as  upon  a  single  spot  of  earth  ;  and 
cannot  the  central  light  of  God  convey  revelation  to  others  as  well 
as  to  us  ?  Is  there  no  angel  to  bear  the  news  ?  no  prophet  among 
them  to  receive  the  inspiration  ?  To  them,  then,  as  to  principali- 
ties and  powers  in  heavenly  places,  may  be  made  known  the  mani- 
fold wisdom  of  God  in  the  Church."  ' 

3.  A  Practical  Lesson  foi'  All. — While,  therefore,  the  lesson  of 
the  atonement  surely  opens  its  pages  to  the  reading  of  all  intelligences, 
the  fact  itself,  and  the  great  truths  which  it  reveals,  cannot  fail 
profoundly  to  interest  and  impress  all  minds.  A  little  attention 
will  give  us  the  facts  for  the  full  verification  of  this  position. 

Divine  revelation  makes  known  to  us  the  existence  of  other  orders 
of  moral  beings.  With  this  knowledge,  even  reason  ^^^  moral 
hears,  respecting  each  order,  the  one  creative  fiat  of  constitution 
Godhead:  "In  our  image,  after  our  likeness."*  And,  "*"  ^^^• 
formed  in  the  one  image  of  God,  they  have  a  oneness  of  moral  con- 
stitution. As  made  known  in  the  Scriptures,  they  clearly  have  a 
moral  nature  like  our  own,  and  are,  therefore,  in  the  likeness  of 
each  other. 

However  numerous  their  orders  or  vast  the  scale  of  their  grada- 
tions, yet,  with  a  oneness  of  moral  nature,  they  are  one     „  ..„  .,„„  , 

"^  .     ,  ,.  ..  SAME  MORAL 

in  moral  motivity.    The  same  divine  truths  which  im-     motivitt  in 
press  one  may  impress  another,  or  that  interest  us  may     ^^^' 
interest  all.     The  soul  of  each  is  open  to  the  practical  revelation  of 

'  Eph.  iii,  10  ;  1  Pet.  i,  12  ;  Rev.  v,  11-13. 

'  Chalmers  :  Astronomical  Discourses,  Discourse  iv. 

^  Watson  :  Sermons,  vol.  i,  p.  187.  •'Gen.  i,  26. 


210  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

God  in  his  justice,  holiness,  and  love;  in  his  marvelous  works  of 
creation  and  providence;  in  his  universal  Fatherhood;  in  all  the 
behests  of  his  will. 

The  revelation  of  God  and  truth  in  the  atonement  may  give  to 
all  their  profoundest  reliarious  conceptions,  and  move 

THE  CROSS  A  ^  pit  r  ' 

POWER  WITH  them  with  a  pathos  of  love  and  a  power  of  moral  influ- 
■*""  ence  above  every  other  truth.    In  the  marvelous  adjust- 

ments of  the  infinite  wisdom  there  cannot  be  wanting  a  masterly 
correlation  of  all  moral  natures  to  the  grandest  truth  in  the  uni- 
verse. All  holy  intelligences  are  open  to  the  moral  power  of  the 
cross. 

II.  A  Lesson  of  Universal  Interest. 

1.  Higher  Orders  Interested  in  Redem2)tion. — The  facts  of  this 
interest  might  be  appropriated  to  a  further  illustration  of  truths 
previously  given.  The  nature  of  the  interest  as  made  known,  the 
facts  which  it  regards,  and  the  measure  of  it,  all  signify  a  likeness 
of  moral  cognition  and  motivity  to  our  own,  and,  therefore,  a  ca- 
pacity for  the  apprehension  and  practical  realization  of  the  great 
truths  revealed  in  the  atonement. 

The  sympathy  of  higher  orders  with  us  is  made  known  by  the 
THEIR  SYMPA-  Redccmcr  himself :  "  I  say  unto  you,  that  likewise  joy 
THiEs.  shall  be  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  more 

than  over  ninety  and  nine  just  persons,  which  need  no  repentance." 
'*  Likewise,  I  say  unto  you,  there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels 
of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth. " '  These  words  are  very 
direct  and  explicit,  and  entirely  sufficient.  Yet  there  are  many 
other  words  and  facts  which  convey  a  like  sense.  Angels  often 
press  into  the  scenes  of  human  history,  and  not  as  curious  specta- 
tors, but  as  deeply  interested  in  human  welfare.  And  their  pro- 
founder  sympathy,  as  evinced  in  their  exceeding  joy  over  our  re- 
pentance, is  given  in  an  association  with  illustrative  facts  of  human 
experience — as  in  the  parables  of  the  lost  piece  of  silver,  the  lost 
sheep,  and  the  prodigal  son — which  clothe  it  in  the  likeness  of  our 
own  sympathies.*  Only,  the  sympathies  of  these  higher  orders  are 
broader  and  deeper.  Ours  largely  conform  to  the  laws  of  our  more 
special  relationships,  and  are  much  subject  to  what  is  merely  con- 
ventional, while  theirs  are  free  from  such  limitations.  With  them 
all  intelligences  are  a  common  brotherhood.  Hence  their  sympa- 
thies go  out  alike  to  all.  So  they  come  down  to  us.  And,  with 
the  fullness  of  their  love  and  profound  apprehension  of  our  miseries 
in  sin,  they  have  the  deepest  compassion  for  us.  Hence  their  ex- 
ceeding joy  over  our  repentance.     They  view  it  as  our  escape  from 

'  Luke  XV,  7,  10.  -Chalmers  :  Astronomical  Discourses,  Discourse  v. 


A  LESSON  FOR  ALL  INTELLIGENCES.  211 

the  misery  and  death  of  sin,  and  our  entrance  upon  the  highway 
of  life,  with  its  terminns  amid  their  own  thrones  and  glories.  This 
is  their  exceeding  joy. 

But  their  joy  has  other  impulses  than  such  sympathy  with  us. 
It  specially  has  an  impulse  in  a  profound  love  and  loyalty  to 
Christ.  They  know  that  our  salvation  is  dear  to  him. 
Their  whole  nature  is  profoundly  enlisted  with  him  in 
the  work  of  saving  us.  And  when  they  witness  his  success  and  his 
own  satisfaction  in  our  salvation  they  have  exceeding  joy — their 
joy  welling  up  from  the  profoundest  love  and  loyalty  to  him. 

In  such  facts  respecting  the  sympathy  of  higher  orders  with  us, 
especially  in  its  relation  to  our  salvation  and  to  Christ  as  the  Saviour, 
we  are  assured  of  their  knowledge  of  the  great  redemp-  rvq^.  of  oir 
tion  in  his  blood,  and  of  their  profound  interest  therein.  Redkmptiox. 
Chosen  messengers  from  their  own  mighty  hosts  welcomed  his  re- 
deeming advent,  and  in  gladdest  strains  proclaimed  him  a  Saviour.' 
In  the  holy  of  holies,  skillfully  wrought  cherubim  with  intent  gaze 
hovered  over  the  mercy-seat,  the  place  of  atonement  and  symbol  of 
the  atonement  in  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  thus  they  symbolized  the 
profound  interest  of  the  angels  in  the  study  of  the  mysteries  of  re- 
demption.^ Nor  could  they  fail  of  such  a  knowledge  of  the  atone- 
ment as  would  bring  to  them  the  practical  force  of  its  great  truths. 

2.  Meaning  of  the  LorcWiip  of  Christ. — The  exaltation  of  Christ 
in  supreme  Headship  over  the  Church,  and  in  universal  Lordship 
over  the  angels,  is  a  truth  clearly  given  in  the  Scriptures.^  The 
passages  noted  in  the  reference  are  most  explicit,  and  full  of  the 
loftiest  utterances.  Christ  is  Head  of  the  Church  universal, 
whether  on  earth  or  in  heaven,  and  supreme  Lord  over  all  intelli- 
gences. 

Such  royal  investiture  of  the  exalted  Christ  is  in  reward  of  his 
humiliation  and  redeeming  death.  A  recurrence  to  the  grocxd  of 
texts  just  given  by  reference  will  make  this  clear  to  exaltation. 
any  mind.  We  may  cite  one  in  illustration  :  "  Who,  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God ;  but 
made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the  form  of 
a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men  ;  and  being  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient 
unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  Wherefore  God  also  hath 
highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name :  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and 

'  Luke  ii,  9-14.  ""  Exod.  xxv,  18,  22  ;  Heb.  ix,  5  ;  1  Pet.  i,  12. 

^Eph.  i,  20-23 ;  iii,  10  ;  Phil,  ii,  9-11 ;  1  Pet.  iii,  22. 


212  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father." 

Such  exaltation  has  not  respect  to  Christ  simply  in  his  divinity. 

The  texts  which  reveal  it  give  a  contrary  sense.     Nor  is  the  idea  of 

such  an  exaltation  of  divinity  in  itself  simply  at  all  ad- 

KXALTED    AS  i     */ 

THEANTHRo-  missiblc.  Much  less  may  we  hold  this  royal  investiture 
^^^'  simply  in  respect  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.    This 

is  forbidden  by  the  nature  of  the  powers  and  prerogatives  with 
which  he  is  clothed.  Saints  and  angels,  principalities  and  powers, 
all  holy  intelligences,  are  made  subject  to  him.  They  must  render 
him  the  fullest  obedience  and  the  profoundest  worship.  His  divine 
nature,  therefore,  must  not  be  considered  as  separate  from  him  in 
this  marvelous  exaltation,  else  Christianity  be  justly  accounted  the 
vastest  system  of  idolatry  ever  established.  It  would  be  such  a  sys- 
tem, and  not  only  on  earth,  but  also  in  heaven,  and  throughout 
the  universe.  It  is  the  incarnate  Son,  the  Christ  in  two  natures, 
and  yet  in  unity  of  personality,  that  is  so  exalted.  It  is  the  re- 
deeming God-man,  the  veritable  Theanthropos  who  receives  such 
royal  investiture.  As  such  he  is  worthy  of  it  all ;  worthy  in  his 
divinity,  and  worthy  because  of  his  redeeming  work.  It  is  fitting 
that  he  who  stooped  so  low  should  be  exalted  so  high. 

Such  enthronement  as  the  Saviour  is  the  peculiar  glory  of  the 
Son.  There  is  thus  claimed  for  him  the  obedience  and  worshipful 
GLORY  OF  THE  homagc  of  all  intelligences.  It  is  the  peculiar  glory  of 
^^'^-  the  Father  that  he  is  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of  all  things. 

When  creation  and  providence  are  ascribed  to  the  Son  it  is  in  the 
deepest  truth  and  reality  of  both,  but  never  excluding  the  idea  of 
his  subordination  therein  to  the  Father.  And  such  facts  are  set 
forth  in  the  Gospel,  not  as  his  peculiar  glory,  but  specially  in  con- 
nection with  his  redeeming  work,  that  we  might  be  assured  of  its 
sufficiency. '  This  distinction  of  the  peculiar  glory  of  each  is  clearly 
given  in  the  Scriptures.''  In  the  first  passage  noted  in  the  refer- 
ence the  words  of  the  holy  worshipers  are,  ''  Thou  art  worthy, 
0  Lord,  to  receive  glory,  and  honor,  and  power  :  for  thou  hast  cre- 
ated all  things,  and  for  thy  pleasure  they  are  and  were  created  ; " 
and  in  the  second,  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  to  receive 
power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and  honor,  and 
glory,  and  blessing." 

It  may  seem  strange  that  Christ,  as  the  Saviour  of  man  exalted 
NOTEWORTHY  ^^  o^^^  uaturc,  should  be  enthroned  in  sovereignty  over 
FACT.  angels  as  over  saints.    It  is  a  noteworthy  fact.     Nor  is 

it  without  its  reasons.     In  his  divinity  he  is  worthy  of  such  honor 

'  Jolin  i,  1-4,  14  ;  Col.  i,  14-18  ;  Heb.  i,  3.  '  Rev.  iv,  10,  11 ;  v,  11,  12. 


A  LESSON  FOR  AJ>L  INTELLIGENCES.  -JIS 

and  glory.  And  it  is  fitting  tliiit  in  his  exaltation  he  should  receive 
a  dominion  reaching  far  beyond  the  immediate  subjects  of  his  re- 
demption. Then  his  redeeming  work  touches  the  heart  of  angels, 
and  of  all  holy  intelligences,  as  nothing  else  can.  They  will  ever 
find  their  highest  reason  for  a  worshipful  loyalty  to  his  throne  in 
that  he  ransomed  us  from  the  power  of  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  him- 
self. In  the  profoundest  sympathy  with  us  in  the  miseries  of  sin 
and  death,  they  have  the  profoundest  love  and  loyalty  to  him  for 
our  salvation. 

Yet  this  is  no  monopolized  glory  on  the  part  of  the  redeeming 
Lord.  His  royal  investiture,  the  bowing  of  every  knee  to  liim,  the 
confession  of  every  tongue  that  he  is  Lord — all  is  ''to  divink  har- 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  We  have  given  two  ^'osif.s. 
celestial  scenes  as  opened  in  the  Revelation  :  one,  in  which  the 
Father  receives  universal  homage  as  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of  all 
things ;  the  other,  in  which  the  Son  receives  universal  homage  as 
the  Lamb  slain.  There  is  no  dissonance  here.  Then  in  a  third 
scene,  as  we  behold  the  worshipers  and  listen  to  their  devout  strains, 
we  catch  the  fullness  of  the  divine  harmony  :  "  Blessing,  and  honor, 
and  gloiy,  and  power,  be  unto  Him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne, 
and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever." ' 

Now,  grouping  the  several  facts  under  the  universal  Lordship  of 
Christ,  we  are  again  assured  that  the  knowledge  of  his  atonement 
comes  to  all  intelligences,  and  in  a  manner  profoundly  to  interest 
them.  Its  marvelous  truth  and  grace,  its  revelation  of  God  in  his 
justice,  and  holiness,  and  love,  must  occupy  their  minds  and  take 
the  deepest  hold  upon  all  the  practical  forces  of  their  moral  being. 

And  we  thus  find  that  great  ends  are  answered  by  the  universal 
Lordship  of  the  exalted  Christ.  As  he  is  enthroned  over  all,  so  is 
he  set  before  all.  This  gives  to  all  a  knowledge  of  his  grkat  kxds 
redeeming  work.  And  the  two  facts  of  his  humiliation  attained. 
and  exaltation  combine  in  a  universal  lesson  of  the  highest  moral 
and  religious  truth.  There  is  such  a  lesson  in  the  atonement.  It 
is  fraught  with  a  manifold  divine  wisdom.  We  may  here  recall  to 
mind  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  previously  given  by  reference,  "  wherein 
he  speaks  of  the  work  of  redemption  through  Christ  as  contain- 
ing a  revelation,  or  exhibition,  of  the  manifold — many-sided,  or 
many-colored — wisdom  of  God — //  noXvnoiKtXog  oo(j)ia  rov  Qeov.^ 
The  precise  connection  of  thought  in  which  the  expression  occurs 
it  is  not  necessary  to  point  out :  it  bears  the  stamp  of  a  phrase 
coined  by  the  apostle  to  embody  the  feeling  produced  in  his  mind 
by  deep  and  protracted  reflection  on  the  gracious  purpose  of  God  in 
'Rev.  V,  13.  «Eph.  iii,  10. 

16 


ONE  MORAL 
SYSTEM. 


214  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Jesus  Christ.  After  long,  rapt  meditation  on  the  sublime  theme, 
Paul  feels  that  the  divine  idea  of  redemption  has  many  aspects. 
The  pure  light  of  divine  wisdom  revealed  in  the  Gospel  is  resolva- 
ble into  many  colored  rays,  which  together  constitute  a  glorious 
spectrum  presented  to  the  admiring  view  of  principalities  and  pow- 
ers in  heavenly  places,  and  of  all  men  on  earth  whose  eyes  are  open 
to  see  it. " '  But  it  is  not  simply  for  their  admiration.  The  atonement 
has  infinite  treasures  of  most  salutary  truth.  Such  truth  reaches 
all  intelligences,  specially  through  the  universal  Lordship  of  Christ, 
and  rules  them  through  the  practical  force  of  the  ideas  and  motives 
which  it  embodies.     This  is  the  divinest  moral  government. 

3.  Moral  Grandeur  of  the  Atonement. — We  depart  not  from 
the  position  that  the  atonement  is  directly  and  actually  for  man 
only,  but  none  the  less  liold  that  of  an  infinitely  broader  practical 
relation  to  intelligent  beings. 

Divine  moral  government  is  one  and  universal,  as  the  law  of  gravi- 
tation is  one  and  universal.  This  one  law  holds  sway  over  the 
earth,  and  the  planets,  and  all  the  stellar  worlds.  So 
moral  law,  in  its  deeper  principles,  is  one  over  man, 
and  angels,  and  all  intelligences.  The  material  and  moral  systems 
are  widely  different :  in  the  one,  a  law  of  necessitating  force  ;  in  the 
other,  a  law  of  obligation,  with  freedom  of  the  subjects.  Here  the 
highest  ruling  forces  are  in  the  moral  ideas  associated  with  the  law, 
and  in  the  sanctions  which  enforce  its  duties.  As  previously  stated, 
their  governing  power  is  conditioned  on  certain  moral  motivities  in 
the  subjects.  As  the  moral  constitution  of  subjects  is  so  correlated 
to  the  moral  law  that  there  may  be  a  profound  realization  of  its 
obligation,  together  with  all  the  higher  motives  of  duty,  so,  and 
only  thus,  has  the  moral  law  a  high  ruling  power.  Even  penalty, 
as  a  salutary  force  of  law,  must  take  its  place  on  such  principles  and 
in  association  with  such  facts. 

The  atonement  in  Christ  takes  its  place  in  such  a  universal  moral 
system.  As  an  atonement  for  sin  it  has  its  application  to  the  small- 
ATONEMENT  sst  scgmcnt  of  the  system  ;  but  in  its  significance  and 
THEREIN.  ruling  forces  it  has  a  universal  application.    And  in  the 

marveloiTs  economies  of  his  wisdom  and  love  God  has  provided  for 
its  highest  benedictions  in  all  such  breadth  of  relation.  Illustra- 
tions we  already  have  in  the  universal  information  of  the  atone- 
ment ;  in  its  ruling  force  by  virtue  of  its  own  facts  and  the  adjiist- 
ment  of  all  moral  natures  to  its  influence ;  in  the  universal  Lordship 
of  Christ  as  the  special  means  of  such  information  and  influence. 
Thus  as  the  highest  revelation  of  God  in  his  holiness,  and  justice, 

'  Bruce  :   The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  p.  324. 


A  LESSON  FOR  ALL  INTELLIGENCES.  215 

and  love ;  in  liis  invincible  hostility  to  sin ;  in  his  immutable  pur- 
pose to  maintain  his  own  honor  and  autliority,  and  sacredly  to  guard 
the  rights  and  interests  of  his  subjects,  the  atonement  takes  its  place 
in  the  universal  moral  system.  With  all  the  potencies  of  practical 
truth  it  addresses  itself  to  all  minds. 

As  the  highest  revelation  of  infinite  love,  the  atonement  will  bind 
all  holy  intelligences  in  the  deeper  love  to  the  one  en-  thk  social 
throned  Lord  of  all,  and  so,  with  all  their  distinctions  '*<'''^''- 
of  order  and  grade,  bind  them  in  love  to  one  another.  "And  the 
principle  which  shall  harmonize  this  system  is  at  once  seen,  if  it  be 
assumed  that  when  the  Eternal  Word  was  made  flesh — when  He 
who  was  '  before  all  things  and  in  whom  all  things  consist '  hum- 
bled himself  to  the  level  of  mortality,  and,  '  passing  by  the  nature 
of  angels,*  took  upon  him  a  nature  'somewhat  lower' — there 
was  a  purpose  involved  which  goes  beyond  the  immediate  results 
of  the  propitiatory  work  of  the  Eedeemer.  So  that  when  his  vicari- 
ous functions  shall  have  reached  their  completion,  the  union  of  the 
divine  and  human  natures  shall  continue  to  bear  a  relation  to  the 
social  economy  of  the  great  immortal  family  in  the  heavens,  and 
shall  forever  subsist  as  the  principle  or  the  reason  of  communica- 
tion and  harmony  among  all  ranks.'"  This  view,  so  rational  in 
thought  and  forceful  in  expression,  is  far  clearer  and  more  forceful 
when  read  in  the  light  of  such  facts  and  principles  as  we  have  given 
in  this  chapter. 

When,  therefore,  we  assert  a  necessity  for  the  atonement  and 
set  forth  its  benefits,  we  must,  for  any  adequate  conception,  take 
an  infinitely  broader  view  than  the  present  sphere  of  the  broader 
humanity,  or  even  the  eternal  destiny  of  the  race.  Be-  "'''^'^• 
cause  the  one  law  of  gravitation  is  universal,  the  disorder  of  one 
world  might,  if  uncorrected,  become  a  far-extended  evil ;  while  its 
correction  might  be  a  good  extending  far  beyond  itself,  and  reach- 
ing even  to  all  worlds — except  to  any  wandering  star  lost  in  the 
blackness  of  darkness  forever.  80  the  evil  of  sin  in  this  world 
might,  with  the  license  of  impunity,  become  a  far-extended  evil  ; 
while  its  treatment  under  the  atonement  may  become  a  far-extended 
good,  reaching  even  to  all  intelligences — except  the  incorrigible  or 
finally  lost,  fitly  compared  to  a  wandering  and  forever  lost  star." 
And  such  treatment  of  sin,  with  forgiveness  on  a  true  faith  in  Christ, 
may  be,  and  no  doubt  is,  an  infinitely  higher  moral  good  to  other 
intelligences  than  its  unconditional  doom  under  the  penalty  of 
justice.' 

'  Isaac  Taylor  :  Saturday  Evening,  p.  370.  '  Jude  13. 

'Watson:  Sermons^  vol.  i,  pp.  187-189. 


216  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Thus  all  minds  receive  the  great  lesson  of  the  atonement,  with  its 
st-BLiMEST  potency  of  moral  truth  and  pathos  of  love.  And  all 
TRCTH.  intelligences,  faithful  or  fallen,  must  bow  the  knee  at 

the  name  of  Jesus.  In  the  lesson  of  his  cross  all  must  learn  the  pro- 
f oundest  truth  of  the  divine  holiness  and  love ;  of  the  evil  and 
hopeless  doom  of  unatoned  or  unrepented  sin ;  of  the  obligation 
and  blessedness  of  obedience  and  love.  All  holy  intelligences, 
bound  in  deeper  love  and  loyalty  to  the  divine  throne  by  the  moral 
power  of  the  atonement,  will  forever  stand  the  firmer  in  their  obe- 
dience and  bliss. '  And  the  cross,  once  the  stigma  of  most  heinous 
crime  and  the  sign  of  the  deepest  abasement  of  Chiist,  shall  hence- 
forth symbolize  to  all  intelligences  the  sublimest  moral  truth  in  the 

universe. 

» Bledsoe  :  Theodicy,  pp.  204-208. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  217 


CHAPTER  XI. 

UNIVERSALITY    OF    THE    ATONEMENT. 

Arminianism  and  Calvinism,  the  two  leading  evangelical  systems, 
inevitably  join  issue  on  the  extent  of  the  atonement.  The  former, 
by  its  principles  of  moral  government,  its  doctrine  of  sin,  and  the 
cardinal  facts  of  its  soteriology,  is  determined  to  a  theory  of  univer- 
sality. The  latter,  by  its  doctrine  of  divine  decrees,  its  principles 
of  soteriology,  and  the  nature  of  the  atonement  which  it  maintains, 
is  determined  to  a  theory  of  limitation.  Hence  the  question  of 
extent  is  more  than  a  question  of  fact ;  it  concerns  the  very  doctrine 
of  atonement.  It  specially  concerns  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction. 
If  in  the  divine  destination  the  atonement  is  alike  for  all,  and  actu- 
ally as  well  as  potentially  sufficient  for  all,  then  that  doctrine  cannot 
be  true.  Otherwise,  all  must  be  saved.  Its  advocates  will  not  dis- 
sent from  this. 

There  is  a  modified  Calvinism  which  holds  a  general  atonement ; 
but  the  fact  does  not  affect  the  correctness  of  our  ^  new  thk- 
etatement  respecting  Calvinism  proper.  And  this  '"^'''^• 
modified  view  rather  shifts  than  voids  the  very  serious  difficulties 
of  limitation,  or  replaces  them  by  others  equally  grave.  The  new 
theory  originated  early  in  the  seventeenth  century  with  Camero,  an 
eminent  Protestant,  and  professor  of  theology  in  France.  Amyraut, 
Placaeus,  and  Cappellus  were  his  associates,  and  active  in  the  devel- 
opment and  propagation  of  his  views.  Baxter  was  in  their  succes- 
sion. Many  Congregationalists  and  New  School  Presbyterians  have 
held  substantially  the  same  theory.' 

The  doctrine,  while  maintaining  a  general  atonement,  holds  in 
connection  with  it  special  election  and  a  sovereign  application  of 
grace  in  the  salvation  of  the  elect.  Christ  died  for  all.  The  Gospel, 
with  all  its  overtures  of  grace,  may  therefore  be  preached  to  all  in 
the  fullest  consistency.  But  all  reject  its  proffered  grace.  They 
do  this  from  a  moral  inability  to  its  acceptance  ;  yet  responsibly, 
because  of  a  natural  ability  to  the  acceptance.  Then  God  inter- 
poses and  sovereignly  applies  the  grace  of  atonement  in  the  salva- 
tion of  the  elect. 

In  addition  to  the  two  distinctions  of  supralapsarian  and  infra- 

'  McClintock  &  Strong  :  Cyclopaedia,  vol.  i,  pp.  209,  210. 
10 


218  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

lapsarian  election,  this  doctrine  really  gives  ns  a  third,  which  might 
ixFRAREDEMP-  ^6  callcd  Inf raredcmptarian.  A  universal  atonement 
TARiAN.  could  have  no  universal  gracious  purpose  when  before- 

hand God  had  elected  a  part  to  the  benefit  of  its  grace  and  excluded 
the  rest  therefrom.  Indeed,  such  a  prior  election  and  a  universal 
atonement  cannot  stand  together.  An  election  after  redemption 
may  be  consistent  with  this  modified  Calvinistic  soteriology.  The 
theory,  however,  is  really  valueless  for  the  relief  of  the  very  serious 
difficulties  which  beset  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement.  But 
we  here  dismiss  it  as  not  directly  in  the  line  of  the  present  question. 

This  further  may  be  said,  without  any  retraction  respecting  Cal- 
vinism, that  there  is  nothing  in  its  deej)er  princij)les  to  limit  the 
atonement,  had  it  pleased  God  to  destine  it  for  all.  Such  a  divine 
sovereignty  as  the  system  asserts  was  surely  free  to  embrace  all  in 
the  covenant  of  redemptive  grace.  But  as  the  atonement  of  satis- 
faction, both  by  its  own  nature  and  by  all  the  principles  of  soteriol- 
ogy scientifically  united  with  it,  must  issue  in  the  actual  salvation 
of  all  for  whom  it  is  made,  and  as  actual  salvation  is  limited  in  fact, 
therefore  such  an  atonement  must  have  been  limited  in  its  divine 
destination.     So  it  is  held. 

The  question  of  extent  in  the  atonement  has  its  issue  and  inter- 
est mainly  between  Arminianism  and  Calvinism.  Historically,  its 
polemics  is  specially  between  them.  Nor  shall  we  turn  aside  in  this 
discussion  to  treat  its  comparatively  indifferent  relation  to  other 
schemes.  Both  of  these  systems  maintain  the  reality  of  an  atone- 
ment in  Christ  as  the  only  and  necessary  ground  of  forgiveness  and 
salvation ;  and  as  the  question  of  its  nature  lies  specially  between 
them,  so  does  that  of  its  extent. 

I.  Determining  Law  of  Extent. 
1.  Intrinsic  Sufficiency  for  All. — If  the  son  of  a  king  should 
mediate  in  behalf  of  rebellious  subjects,  and  so  much  should  be 
required,  in  whatever  form  of  personal  sacrifice,  for  each  individual 
forgiveness,  then  the  extent  of  the  forgiveness  provided  would  be 
determined  by  the  amount  of  sacrifice  endured  by  the  mediating 
son.  The  atonement  in  the  mediation  of  Christ  is  on  a  different 
principle.  So  it  is  maintained,  and  has  been,  with  the  exception 
of  such  as  hold  the  now  generally  discarded  theory  of  an  identical  or 
equal  penalty  by  substitution.  Now  by  common  consent  the  atone- 
ment is  the  same  in  intrinsic  worth,  and  infinitely  sufficient  for  all, 
whether  really  for  all  or  for  only  a  part.  Hence,  if  there  be  a  limi- 
tation to  a  part  of  mankind,  it  must  be  the  result  of  a  limiting 
divine  destination,  and  not  from  any  want  of  an  intrinsic  sufficiency 


UNIVEHSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  210 

for  all.  So  far  there  is  now  no  reason  for  any  issue  between  Cal- 
vinism and  Arminianism. 

2.  Divine  Destination  Determinative  of  Extent. — The  notion  of 
a  redemption  of  humanity  as  a  nature,  and  therefore  of  all  indi- 
vidual partakers  of  the  nature,  is  inherently  erroneous  and  false  to 
the  true  doctrine  of  atonement.  The  atonement  is  for  sinners  as 
such,  and,  therefore,  must  be  for  them  as  individual  sinners.  It  is 
only  as  such  that  they  can  be  either  condemned  or  forgiven.  It  is 
only,  therefore,  in  their  distinct  personalities  that  they  canbeeitlier 
in  need  of  an  atonement  or  the  recipients  of  its  grace.  This  notion 
of  the  redemption  of  human  nature  as  such,  and  therefore  of  all 
men,  has  never  gained  any  formal  position  in  Arminian  theology; 
yet  it  has  not  been  entirely  absent  from  individual  opinion  and  ut- 
terance. It  has,  probably,  commended  itself  to  some  as  strongly 
favoring  the  universality  of  the  atonement.  If  founded  in  truth  it 
would  be  conclusive  of  the  question  ;  but  it  is  not  founded  in  the 
truth,  nor  can  it  be,  and  for  the  reason  previously  given.  Xor  is 
such  a  position  at  all  necessary  to  the  grand  truth  of  a  universal 
atonement. 

The  atonement  is  for  individual  men  by  virtue  of  a  divine  inten- 
tion.    While,  therefore,  sufficient  for  all,  it  is  really  for        ^^„,^.  ^,^„ 

^  '  .  .  ONI.\      FOR 

all  or  for  a  part  only,  according  to  that  same  intention.  whom  in- 
We  are  so  writing  in  full  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  such 
is  precisely  and  explicitly  the  Calvinistic  position.  We  shun  it  not 
on  that  account.  It  is  the  truth  in  the  case,  and,  therefore,  we  fully 
accept  it.  We  shall  suffer  no  detriment,  but  find  an  advantage,  in 
the  maintenance  of  a  universal  atonement.  But  Calvinistic  divines, 
while  holding  a  limited  atonement,  are  most  pronounced  upon  its 
intrinsic  sufficiency  for  all.  And  they  warmly  repel  all  accusation 
of  a  contrary  view,  and  all  idea  that  a  limitation  of  sufficiency  can 
have  any  logical  sequence  to  their  doctrine.  No  Arminian  can  be 
more  explicit  or  emphatic  in  the  declaration  of  this  sufficiency. 
The  question  of  their  consistency  is  another  question,  but  one  that 
does  not  properly  arise  here.  But  they  are  consistent  and  right 
in  maintaining  that  the  extent  of  the  atonement  is  determined 
by  its  divine  destination.  While  intrinsically  sufficient  for  all,  it 
is  really  for  only  a  part,  because  God  so  intended  it.  Such  is  their 
ground. 

We  might  verify  these  positions  by  numerous  quotations  from  the 
highest  Calvinistic  authorities.     Their  truth,  however,   ^he  oalvims- 
is  so  familiar  to  careful  students  of  this  subject,  and  so  ^ic  view. 
out  of  all  question,  as  to  be  in  little  need  of  proof.     A  few  quota- 
tions may  be  given  in  the  way  of  example  or  illustration. 


'220  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

•'  The  obedience  and  sufferings  of  Christ,  considered  in  them- 
selves, are,  on  account  of  the  infinite  dignity  of  his  per- 
son, of  that  value  as  to  have  been  sufficient  for  redeem- 
ing, not  only  all  and  every  man  in  particular,  but  many  myriads 
besides,  had  it  so  pleased  God  and  Christ  that   he  should  have 
undertaken  and  satisfied  for  them."  ' 

On  the  question  respecting  the  extent  of  the  atonement  :  "  It 
does  not  respect  the  value  and  sufficiency  of  the  death  of 

TPRRETTIN 

Christ,  whether  as  to  its  intrinsic  worth  it  might  be 
sufficient  for  the  redemption  of  all  men.  It  is  confessed  by  all, 
that  since  its  value  is  infinite,  it  would  have  been  sufficient  for  the 
redemption  of  the  entire  human  family  had  it  appeared  good  to 
God  to  extend  it  to  the  whole  world.  .  .  .  The  question  which  we 
discuss  concerns  the  purpose  of  the  Father  in  sending  the  Son,  and 
the  intention  of  the  Son  in  dying. "  ° 

''  The  two  sides  of  this  question  do  not  imply  any  difference  of 

opinion  with  regard  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  death  of 

Christ,  or  with  regard  to  the  number  and  character  of 

those  who  shall  eventually  be  saved.  .  .  .  But  they  differ  as  to  the 

destination  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  whether  in  the  purpose  of  the 

Father  and  the  will  of  the  Son  it  respected  all  mankind,  or  only 

those  persons  to  whom  the  benefit  of  it  is  at  length  to  be  applied." ' 

"All   Calvinists  agree   in  maintaining   earnestly  that   Christ's 

obedience  and  sufferings  were  of  infinite  intrinsic  value 

in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  that  there  was  no  need  for 

him  to  obey  or  suffer  an  iota  more  nor  a  moment  longer  in  order  to 

secure,  if  God  so  willed,  the  salvation  of  every  man,  woman,  and 

child  that  ever  lived."  *     We  add  a  few  references.^ 

Whether  such  a  view  has  scientific  consistency  is  a  question  which 
QUESTION  OF  concerns  not  us,  but  those  who  maintain  it.  Dr.  Schaff 
CONSISTENCY,  h^s  Tcal  grouud  for  saying,  as  he  artlessly  does  in  the 
reference  just  given  :  "  Full  logical  consistency  would  require  us  to 
measure  the  value  of  Christ's  atonement  by  the  extent  of  its  actual 
benefit  or  availability,  and  either  to  expand  or  to  contract  it  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  the  elect."  If  the  atonement  is  by  penal  sub- 
stitution, why  did  Christ  suffer  a  far  deeper  punishment  than  strict 

'  Witsius :  On  the  Covenants,  vol.  i,  p.  225. 

^  Turrettin  :   Atonement  of  Christ,  p.  123. 

'  Hill  :  Lectures  in  Divinity,  pp.  505,  506. 

*  A.  A.  Hodge  :   The  Atonement,  p.  356. 

'  Owen  :  Works  (Goold's),  vol.  x,  p.  297;  Schaff  :  Creeds  of  Christendom, 
vol.  i,  pp.  520,  521  ;  Symington  :  Atonement  and  Intercession,  p.  185  ;  Smeaton : 
The  Apostles^  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  p.  538  ;  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol, 
ii,  p.  544 ;  Cunningham :  Historical  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  332. 


L'NIVKRSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  221 

justice  required  as  a  full  equivalent  for  the  penal  dues  of  the  elect  ? 
We  know  that  the  excess  of  merit  is  ascribed  to  the  infinite  rank  of 
Christ.  But,  on  this  doctrine,  his  penal  suffering  is  a  necessary- 
element  of  atonement  :  and  it  is  still  true  that  he  suffered  a  deeper 
punishment  than  justice  required.  Was  this  just  ?  Would  God 
so  punish  him  when  a  far  less  measure  would  be  all  that  justice 
required  ?  The  rectoral  atonement  has  a  place  for  the  utmost 
vicarious  suffering  of  Christ  :  but  the  satisfaction  atonement  has 
no  place  for  any  excess  of  substitutional  punishment.  There  is  an 
excess  without  any  claim  or  ground  in  justice,  or  any  end  in  grace. 
Punishment,  without  an  adequate  ground  in  justice,  is  itself  an 
injustice.  This  is  as  true  in  the  case  of  a  substitute  in  penalty  as 
in  that  of  the  actual  offender  ;  and  as  true  of  all  excess  of  punish- 
ment above  the  requirement  of  justice  as  of  punishment  without 
any  ground  in  justice.  And  what  a  waste  of  atoning  worth  !  All 
the  excess  of  unapplied  grace — enough  for  all  the  finally  lost  and 
infinitely  more — goes  for  nothing.  And  those  who  so  cry  out 
against  a  universal  atonement  as  implying  that  Christ  suffered  and 
died  for  many  in  vain  are  thoroughly  estopped  by  the  inevitable 
implications  of  their  own  doctrine.  Yet  satisfactionists  will  not 
surrender  this  infinite  sufficiency.  In  maintaining  a  limited 
atonement  they  have  the  profoundest  need  for  it.  They  could 
not  presume  to  vindicate  the  universal  overture  of  atoning  grace 
upon  the  ground  of  an  atonement  confessed  to  be  sufficient  for 
only  a  part. 

It  is  surely  clear  enough,  from  the  quotations  and  references  given, 
that  Calvinism  holds  the  divine  destination  of  the  atonement  to  be 
determinative  of  its  extent.  We  fully  accept  this  position.  Cal- 
vinism is  right,  not  in  the  limitation  of  the  atonement,  but  in  the 
determining  law  of  its  extent. 

3.  The  True  Inquiry. — If  the  son  of  a  king  should  interpose  in 
atonement  for  rebellious  subjects,  any  limitation  must  be  imposed 
either  by  the  will  and  purpose  of  the  sovereign  atoned,  or  by  the 
will  and  purpose  of  the  atoning  son.  No  other  has  any  power  in 
the  case.  And  if  we  knew  the  pleasure  of  each  we  could  determine 
therefrom  the  extent  of  the  reconciliation  for  which  provision  is 
made.  The  atonement  is  made  between  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
If  limited,  either  the  Father  would  not  accept,  or  the  Son  would 
not  make,  an  atonement  for  all.  There  is  no  other  law  of  limitation. 
The  true  inquiry,  therefore,  respects  the  will  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  or  what  was  the  pleasure  of  each  respecting  the  extent  of  the 
atonement. 

In  this  we  are  still  in  full  accord  with  the  Calvinistic  position. 


222  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

This  also  is  clear  from  the  quotations  and  references  previously  given. 
To  these  many  others  might  be  added.     "  The  pivot 

THE  PIVOT  •  • 

on  which  the  controversy — respecting  the  extent  of  the 
atonement — turns  is,  what  was  the  purpose  of  the  Father  in  sending 
his  Son  to  die,  and  the  object  which  Christ  had  in  view  in  dying  ; 
not  what  is  the  value  and  efficacy  of  his  death." '  ''But  the  ques- 
tion does  truly  and  only  relate  to  the  design  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  in  respect  to  the  persons  for  whose  benefit  the  atonement 
was  made  ;  that  is,  to  whom,  in  the  making  of  it,  they  intended  it 
should  be  applied.'' 

II.  Pleasuke  of  the  Father. 

On  such  a  question  it  is  proper  to  conclude  the  pleasure  of  the 
Father  from  his  own  revealed  character.  There  are  intimately 
related  facts  of  decisive  testimony,  and,  also,  divine  utterances 
authoritative  in  the  case. 

1.  Question  of  Ids  Sovereignty . — No  plea  of  the  divine  sover- 
iNDiFKERENT  ^^S^^^  ^^^  ^^^'  ^^^  luqulry  into  the  divine  pleasure 
TO  THE  ISSUE,  rcspecting  thc  cxtcut  of  the  atonement.  In  any  case, 
the  question  is  not  so  much  what  God  might  have  done  as  what  he 
was  disposed  to  do  and  really  has  done.  We  raise  no  question 
respecting  a  true  divine  sovereignty,  but  discard  a  purely  arbitrary 
one  as  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  God  and  the  great 
facts  of  his  providence.  Even  an  absolute  arbitrary  sovereignty 
might  as  well  conclude  for  a  general  as  for  a  limited  atonement. 
But  God  does  not  rule  in  such  a  sovereignty.  All  rewards  of  men 
according  to  moral  character  are  to  the  contrary.  So  are  the 
revealed  decisions  of  the  final  judgment.  And  so  is  the  atonement 
itself.  An  absolute  sovereignty  could  need  no  atonement  in  order 
to  forgiveness,  or  in  determining  the  happy  destinies  of  men.  Such 
an  administration  would  be  far  less  inconsistent  with  the  divine 
character  than  the  unconditional  reprobation,  or  equally  dooming 
pretention,  of  the  great  part  of  mankind.  And  if  there  be  a  few 
facts  or  utterances  which  might  be  construed  in  favor  of  an  arbi- 
trary sovereignty,  they  must  yield  to  the  great  facts,  with  the  atone- 
ment itself,  which  prove  the  contrary.  It  is  written,  and  often 
applied  in  this  connection,  "  Even  so.  Father ;  for  so  it  seemed 
good  in  thy  sight."  ^  But  can  the  forced  application  of  such  a  text 
conclude  this  question  ?  And  did  it  seem  good  in  the  sight  of  the 
heavenly  Father  to  limit  an  atonement  sufficient  for  all  to  the  bene- 
fit of  only  a  part?    Good  how,  or  for  what?    Good  as  the  expression 

'  Turrettin  :  The  Atonement  of  Christ,  p.  124. 

«  A.  A.  Hodge  :  The  Atonement,  p.  359.  =  Matt.  xi.  26. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  223 

of  a  sovereignty  which  his  providence  and  the  atonement  itself  dis- 
claim ?  Good  as  a  revelation  of  justice  or  grace  ?  Good  as  a  salu- 
tary lesson  of  moral  government  ?  It  could  have  no  such  reason, 
because  an  arbitrary  sovereignty  can  have  no  other  reason  for  its 
acts  than  its  own  arbitrariness. 

2.  In  one  Relafion  to  All. — God  is  the  Creator  and  Father  of  all 
men.'  There  is,  therefore,  no  difference  of  divine  relationship 
which  could  be  a  reason  for  limitation  in  the  atonement. 

This  point  will  carry  us  further.  The  atonebient  originated  in 
the  divine  compassion,  and  in  its  provisions  and  purposes  answers 
to  its  yearnings.  One  reason  of  this  compassion  was  in  the  divine 
Fatherhood.  God  so  loved  us  as  wretched  and  perishing,  but  esj^e- 
cially  because  we  were  his  wretched  and  perishing  children.  Hence 
the  very  reason  of  his  redeeming  love  was  common  in  all.  It  could 
not,  therefore,  have  been  the  pleasure  of  God  to  destine  the 
atonement  to  the  favor  of  only  a  part,  when  his  love,  in  which  it 
originated,  equally  embraced  all.  And  this  universal  divine  love 
witnesses  to  a  universal  atonement. 

3.  All  in  a  Common  State  of  Evil. — As  all  men  appeared  in  the 
vision  of  the  divine  prescience,  there  was  no  difference  in  their  state 
of  evil,  certainly  none  which  could  be  a  reason  for  a  j)artial  redemp- 
tion. Their  depravity  had  a  common  source  and  was  a  common 
ruin.  And  however  they  might  be  foreseen  to  differ  in  actual  life, 
satisfactionists  themselves  vigorously  deny  any  and  every  thing  in 
them  as  the  reason  of  the  alleged  limitation.  Hence  there  is  not 
any  peculiar  evil  in  a  part  as  the  reason  of  a  partial  redemption. 

This  point,  also,  will  carry  us  further.  Again,  the  atonement 
originated  in  the  divine  compassion.  God  so  loved  us  as  to  provide 
a  ransom  for  our  souls.  This  could  be  no  other  than  a  love  of  com- 
passion, because  the  objects  of  it  are  sinners  and  enemies.^  ^Vhy  this 
pitying  love?  Its  subjective  form  in  God  has  an  objective  reason 
in  us.  That  reason  lies  in  the  miseries  of  our  moral  ruin.  And 
could  this  pitying  love  impose  upon  itself  an  arbitrary  limitation 
when  the  very  reason  of  it  existed  alike  in  all?  And  could  it  be 
the  pleasure  of  the  Father  to  limit  the  atonement  to  a  pai't  when 
his  compassion,  in  which  it  originated,  equally  embraced  all? 

4.  Voice  of  the  Divine  Perfections. — The  atonement  has  a  most 
intimate  relation  to  the  divine  perfections.  Hence  they  have  testi- 
mony to  give  respecting  the  divine  pleasure  as  to  its  extent. 

Divine  justice  has  no  unsatisfiable  claim.  And  the  redeeming 
work  of  Christ,  if  so  intended,  is  sufficient  for  its  full  contentment 

'  Num.  xvi,  22  ;  xxvii,  16 ;  Acts  xvii,  28 ;  Heb.  xii,  9. 
''  Rom.  V,  8-10  ;  Epb.  ii,  4,  5. 


•224  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

in  behalf  of  all  who  accept  its  grace.     So  the  most  rigid  partialism 
will  affirm.    Forgiveness  on  the  ground  of  such  an  atone- 
ment tarnishes  no  glory  of  Justice,  nor  sacrifices  any 
right  or  interest  of  moral  government.     Hence  all  reason  for  limi- 
tation in  divine  justice  is  excluded. 

The  divine  holiness  has  no  reason  for  limitation.     If  the  atone- 
ment is  intrinsically  efficacious  in  the  sanctification  of 
all  the  objects  of  its  favor,  then  the  broader  its  extent 
the  greater  the  interest  of  holiness  secured.     Indeed,  such  higher 
realization  of  holiness  must  have  been  a  great  reason  for  the  divine 
preference  of  a  universal  redemption. 

As  the  atonement  is  a  sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness,  and,  in  the 
case  of  every  sinner  saved,  a  higher  revelation  of  the 
divine  perfections  than  could  be  realized  in  his  merited 
penal  doom,  so  the  broader  the  atonement  the  greater  the  good 
attained.  There  would  also  be  the  greater  service  to  the  ends  of 
moral  government.  Hence,  on  either  theory  of  atonement,  the 
broader  its  destination,  the  broader  is  its  helpful  grace  and  the  more 
salutary  its  moral  lessons.  Can  it,  therefore,  be  consistent  with  the 
divine  wisdom  to  prefer  the  less  good  when,  through  the  same 
atonement,  the  infinitely  greater  might  be  procured  ? 

Beyond  these  favoring  facts,  the  extent   of  the  atonement  is  a 
question  of  the  divine  goodness.     What  is  the  answer  of 

'GOODNESS  •  • 

that  goodness?  It  is  really  voiced  in  the  sublime  words, 
"  God  is  love  !  '*  A  God  of  love  must  prefer  the  happiness  of  all. 
And  as  in  very  truth — as  according  to  all  the  deeper  principles  of 
•Calvinism — there  was  no  hinderance  in  the  case,  his  good  pleasure 
must  have  been  for  a  universal  atonement. 

God  has  spoken  to  this  point  so  directly,  and  in  such  utterances, 
as  to  put  the  fact  of  his  good  pleasure  for  a  universal 
atonement  out  of  all  question.'  Is  it  true,  as  he  affirms 
nnder  most  solemn  self -ad  juration,  that  he  has  no  pleasure  in  the 
death  of  the  wicked,  but  that  he  turn  from  his  way  and  live  ?  Is  it 
true  that  he  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son 
for  its  redemption  ?  Is  it  true  that  he  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved  ?  Is  it  true  that  he  is  long-suffering  to  us-ward,  not  willing 
that  any  should  perish  ?  Can  it  be,  then,  that  in  the  absence  of  all 
hinderance,  and  with  the  presence  of  an  infinitely  greater  good,  he 
preferred  a  limited  atonement,  and  sovereignly  destined  one  intriu- 
sically  sufficient  for  all  to  the  favor  of  only  a  parb  ?  It  cannot  be. 
And  the  Father  placed  no  narrower  limit  to  the  grace  of  redemption 
than  the  uttermost  circle  of  humanity. 

'  Ezek.  xxxiii,  11 ;  John  iii,  16  ;  1  Tim.  ii,  4  ;  3  Peter  iii,  9. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  225. 

III.  Pleasure  of  the  Son. 

1.  Application  of  Preceding  Facts. — All  the  facts  and  principle.? 
respecting  the  pleasure  of  the  Father  have  full  application  in  the 
case  of  the  Son.  They  are  of  one  mind,  and  the  same  objects  of 
redeeming  love  are  before  them.  There  is  equally  with  the  Son  an 
absence  of  all  reason  for  a  preference  of  limitation  in  the  atonement, 
and  the  presence  of  the  same  reasons  for  his  pleasure  in  its  univer- 
sality. 

2.  Atoning  WorJc  the  Same. — In  an  atonement  by  identical  or 
equal  penalty,  the  greater  sacrifice  required  by  the  greater  extent 
might  have  been  a  reason  with  the  Son  for  limitation.  But  the 
atonement  is  not  such.  And  no  lower  step  of  abasement  nor  deeper 
anguish  was  required  to  embrace  all  within  the  sufficiency  of  its 
redemptive  grace.  The  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ  as  actually 
endured  are  all-sufficient  for  a  universal  atonement. 

We  are  here  in  full  accord  with  the  highest  authorities  on  the 
doctrine  of  satisfaction.     This  will  appear  on  a  recur- 

....  T  »  •  1  •  TTT  IN  ACCORD. 

rence  to  citations  and  references  previously  given.  \\  e 
may  add  one  here  :  "  All  that  Christ  did  and  suffered  would  have 
been  necessary  had  only  one  human  soul  been  the  object  of  redemp- 
tion ;  and  nothing  different,  and  nothing  more,  would  have  been 
required  had  every  child  of  Adam  been  saved  through  his  blood." ' 
While  this  view  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  satis- 
factionists,  it  shows  equally  well  their  position  on  the  question  in 
hand.  And  they  ever  allege  this  sufficiency  as  the  chief  ground  on 
which  they  attempt  a  defense  of  the  divine  sincerity  in  a  universal 
overture  of  redemptive  grace.  If,  therefore,  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
as  actually  endured  are  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  there 
could  have  been  no  reason  or  motive  from  the  amount  of  suffering 
necessary  to  give  him  preference  for  a  limited  atonement. 

3.  A  Question  of  Ms  Love. — The  question,  then,  respecting  the 
pleasure  of  the  Son  has  its  answer  from  his  love.  That  answer 
must  be  decisive.  Nor  is  it  in  any  doubt.  The  Son  of  God,  who 
in  pitying  love  to  sinners  parted  with  his  glory  and  humbled  him- 
self to  the  deepest  suffering  and  shame,  was  not  wanting  in  redeem- 
ing love  to  all  men.  And  it  was  his  good  pleasure  that  Ws  atone- 
ment should  be  for  all.     His  cross  so  affirms. 

IV.  Scripture  Testimoky. 
Under  this  heading  we  might  discuss  at  length  the  Scripture  texts 
usually  brought  in  proof  respectively  of  limitation  and  universality 
'  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  545. 


^26  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

in  the  atonement.  This,  however,  is  not  our  purpose  ;  and  a  brief 
treatment  will  answer  for  the  issue. 

1.  Proof -texts  for  Limitation. — The  texts  of  Scripture  more 
directly  applied  in  proof  of  a  limited  atonement  are  not  numerous. 
Nor  will  they  require  a  critical  or  elaborate  exegesis  to  show  either 
their  affirmative  inconclusiveness  or  their  utter  imj)otence  against  the 
many  which  so  explicitly  assert  its  universality.  We  shall  give  the 
texts  for  limitation  by  reference  and  without  full  citation.  And  for  the 
sake  of  a  manifest  fairness  we  will  give  them  from  a  master  in  Calvin- 
ism, with  his  own  italicizing  and  connecting  and  explanatory  words. 

"  TJie  mission  and  death  of  Christ  are  restricted  to  a  limited 
numher — to  his  i^eople,  his  sheep,  his  friends,  his  Church,  his 
tody ;  and  nowhere  extended  to  all  men  severally  and  collect- 
ively. Thus  Christ  is  '  called  Jesus,  because  he  shall  save  his  people 
from  their  sins."  He  is  called  the  Saviour  of  his  lody ;  '  'the 
good  shepherd  who  lays  down  his  life /or  the  sheep,'  ^  and  \for  his 
friends."  *  He  is  said  '  to  die  that  he  might  gather  together  in  one 
the  children  of  God  that  were  scattered  abroad.^  ^  It  is  said  that 
Christ  '  hath  purchased  the  Church  with  his  own  blood.'  *  If  Christ 
died  for  every  one  of  Adam's  posterity  Avhy  should  the  Scriptures 
so  often  restrict  the  object  of  his  death  to  a  few?"  ' 

This  should  be  noted  first,  that  in  all  the  texts  given  there  is  not 
xo  LIMITING  one  word  which  limits  the  atonement  to  the  subjects 
WORD.  named.     And  with  infinitely  more   reason  and    force 

may  we  ask.  If  the  atonement  is  for  only  a  few,  why  do  the 
Scriptures  so  often  assert  that  it  is  for  all?  If,  as  assumed,  it  is  in 
its  own  nature  necessarily  saving,  and  the  actual  saving  is  included 
in  it,  then,  of  course,  there  is  a  limitation.  But  it  is  not  such. 
Sufficient  proof  to  the  contrary  has  already  been  given.  Nothing 
respecting  the  atonement  is  more  certain  than  the  real  conditional- 
ity  of  its  saving  grace.  Hence,  it  is  a  mere  assumption  that  the 
atonement  is  necessarily  saving,  and,  therefore,  that  the  actual 
saving  is  the  extent  of  it.  And  the  elimination  of  this  assumption 
invalidates  the  sum  of  the  author's  argument.  Christ  did  die  for 
the  subjects  named  in  these  texts ;  but  as  they  are  without  a 
restricting  word,  they  are  without  j)roof  of  a  limited  atonement. 

Stress  is  laid  upon  the  terms,  his  people,  his  sheep,  his  friends, 
SPECIAL  ^is  Church,  his  body,  as  though  they  designated  a  dis- 

TERMs.  tinct  and  limited  class  for  which  Christ  died.     They  are 

a  distinct  and  limited  class,  but  as  actually  saved,  not  simply  as 

'  Alatt  i,  31.  'Eph.  v,  23.  "^  John  x,  15.  *  John  xv,  13. 

»  John  xi,  52.         «  Acts  xx,  28  ;  Eph.  v,  25,  36. 
'  Turrettin :  TTie  Atonement  of  Christ,  pp.  125,  126. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  227 

redeemed,  and  especially  not  before  theirredemptiou.  There  is  no  such 
a  class  except  as  the  fruit  of  atonement.  Hence,  there  could  be  no 
such  a  restricted  class  for  which  Christ  died.  The  atonement,  as  the 
only  ground  of  their  peculiar  relation  to  Christ,  must  precede  that  re- 
lation, and  be  made  for  them  as  lost  sinners,  ungodly,  and  enemies.' 
They  can  enter  into  such  a  peculiar  relation  to  Christ  only  through 
the  graceof  an  atonement  previously  made  for  them.  Thatsame  atone- 
ment, previously  made  for  them  as  sinners,  was  so  made  for  all  men. 
If  these  texts  prove  a  limited  atonementthey  must  be  inconsistent 
with  its  universalitv;  or,  if  consistent  with  this,  they  do 

-  '  _  .  "^  CONSISTENT 

not  prove  a  limited  one.  There  is  not  the  least  difficulty  with  univkr- 
in  this  consistency.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Christ  died  ^^''"'^• 
for  all  the  actual  sharers  in  the  saving  grace  of  atonement.  And 
there  are  special  reasons  for  emphasizing  the  fact.  Thus  Christ  im- 
presses upon  their  minds  the  greatness  of  his  love  to  them,  and  the 
greatness  of  the  benefit  received  through  the  grace  of  his  redemption, 
and  so  enforces  his  own  claim  upon  their  love.  But  no  law  of 
interpretation  either  requires  or  implies  the  assumed  restriction  in 
such  a  use  of  terms.  And  the  scheme  of  universality  can  use  them 
just  as  freely  and  consistently  as  the  most  rigid  partialism. 

2.  Proof-texts  for  Universality. — There  is  one  class  with  the 
universal  terms  all  and  ever y.  '^  For  there  is  one  God,  and  one 
mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus  ; 
who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in 
due  time.  *'  ^  Yes,  to  be  testified  as  a  truth,  and  not  to  be  witnessed 
against.  And  the  text  gives  its  own  testimony.  We  know  not  a 
formula  for  the  better  expression  of  a  universal  atonement.  "For 
therefore  we  both  labor  and  suffer  reproach,  because  we  trust  in  the 
living  God,  Avho  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  specially  of  those  that 
believe. "  *  If  God  is  not  in  some  similarity  of  meaning  the  Saviour 
of  all  men,  as  he  is  specially  the  Saviour  of  believers,  there  is  here 
a  comparison  without  any  basis  in  analogy.  If  many  are  foreor- 
dained to  eternal  destruction,  or  merely  under  the  preterition  of  a 
limited  atonement  equally  dooming  them  to  perdition,  God  is  not 
in  any  sense  the  Saviour  of  all  men.  But  with  a  universal  atone- 
ment, whereby  the  salvation  of  all  is  possible,  as  that  of  believers  is 
actual,  there  is  a  clear  sense  in  which  he  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men, 
and  a  sense  consistent  with  the  implied  analogy  of  the  text. 

''  But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels 
for   the  suffering  of  death,   crowned  with  glory  and 
honor  ;  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death 
for  every  man."*     Every  man  is  every  man.     The  identity  of  the 
•  Rom.  V,  6-10  :  Eph.  ii,  11-22.     ^  1  Tim.  ii,  5,  6.     '1  Tim.  iv,  10.     ^Heb.  li,  9. 


228  SYSTE3IATIC  THEOLOGY. 

two  terms  of  a  proposition  does  not  exclude  their  equivalence. 
Rather,  we  have  the  simple  truth  that  a  fact  is  what  it  is.  And  no 
skill  in  exegesis  can  reduce  this  text  to  the  measure  of  a  limited 
atonement. 

There  is  another  class  which  affirms  the  redemption  of  the  world, 
and  in  the  truest  sense  of  a  universal  atonement.'  The 
weakness  of  all  attempts  to  reduce  these  texts  to  the 
meaning  of  a  limited  atonement  really  concedes  their  irreducible  uni- 
versality. The  attempt  requires  an  identification  of  the  world  with 
the  elect.  They  must  have  one  sense,  in  that  both  must  mean  the 
same  persons.  These  texts  would  thus  be  classed  with  the  proof- 
texts  of  limitation,  previously  considered.  World  would  be  one  in 
meaning  with  the  people,  sheep,  friends.  Church,  body  of  Christ. 
Will  it  bear  such  a  sense  ?  The  exegete  has  not  yet  arisen  who 
can  answer  afiirmatively  and  make  good  his  answer. 

3.  Redemption  in  Extent  of  the  Evil  of  Sin. — More  than  once  is 
the  co-extension  of  sin  and  atonement  set  forth. 

**  Therefore,  as  by  the  offense  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 
■  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification 
of  life.'' '  The  "  all  men  "  in  relation  to  Adam  are  all  in  the  fullest 
sense.  No  real  Calvinist  will  question  it.  But  the  "  all  men  "  in 
relation  to  the  redemption  in  Christ  must  be  all  in  the  same  sense 
of  universality.  Indeed,  the  *' all  men''  in  the  two  relations  to 
Adam  and  Christ  are  the  very  same  ;  and  only  a  forced  interpreta- 
tion could  give  less  extension  to  the  term  in  the  latter  case  than  in 
the  former.     The  text  clearly  gives  us  a  universal  atonement. 

"  For  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us  ;  because  we  thus  judge, 
that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead  :  and  that  he  died  for 
all,  that  they  which  live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  themselves, 
but  unto  him  which  died  for  them,  and  rose  again." '  In  the  full 
sense  of  Scripture,  Christ  died  for  men  as  in  a  state  of  sin  and 
death,  and  only  for  such.  But  he  died  for  all ;  therefore  all  were 
dead.  Thus,  in  a  somewhat  syllogistic  statement  the  text  gives  the 
universality  of  the  atoning  death  of  Christ  as  the  major  premise. 
It  is  thus  placed  as  a  truth  above  question. 

For  ''all  dead"  some  give  the  rendering  "all  died" — died  in 

and  with   Christ.^      Thereon   an  attempt  is  made  to 

limit  the  atonement  to  the  elect.     We  will  not  contend 

about  the  new  rendering,  but  must  dispute  the  limiting  interpre- 

'  John  i,  29  ;  iii,  16,  17 ;  xii,  47  ;  2  Cor.  v,  18,  19  ;  1  John  ii,  1,  2  ;  iv,  14. 
'  Eom.  V,  18.  3  2  Cor.  v,  14,  15. 

■*  Candlish  :  The  Atonement,  p.  62  ;  Alf ord,  in  loe. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  220 

tation.  Caiidlish  here  finds  the  Headship  of  Christ  and  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation  of  sin  to  him,  and  of  all  tliat  he  does  and  suffers 
to  those  whom  he  represents,  in  a  sense  "that  whatever  befalls  the 
Head  must  be  held  to  pass,  and  must  actually  pass,  efficaciously, 
to  all  whom  he  represents."  This  is  the  necessary  salvation  of  all 
for  whom  Christ  died.  Hence,  he  must  have  died  for  only  a  part , 
or  the  apostle's  argument  is  implicated  in  Ilniversalism :  "  Xot 
only  is  the  argument  thus  hopelessly  perplexed,  but,  as  in  the  for- 
mer case,  it  is  found  to  tell  in  favor  of  the  notion  of  universal  salva- 
tion rather  than  any  thing  else  ;  making  actual  salvation,  through 
the  death  and  life  of  Christ,  co-extensive  with  death  through  tlie 
sin  of  Adam."  We  could  not  deplore  such  a  realization.  Nor 
could  Dr.  Candlish.  His  trouble  is  with  the  logic  of 
the  case.  Actual  salvation  is  limited  in  fact ;  there- 
fore, an  atonement  necessarily  saving  must  be  limited.  He  is 
logically  right ;  but  the  trouble  comes  from  his  erroneous  doctrine 
of  satisfaction.  With  an  atonement  in  vicarious  suffering  sufficient 
for  all,  but  really  conditional  in  the  saving  result,  its  universality 
is  in  full  accord  with  a  limited  actual  salvation.  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  exigency  of  interpretation  from  a  necessary  harmony  of  fact 
and  doctrine,  requiring  either  the  exclusion  of  the  manifest  com- 
parison of  sin  and  atonement  in  co-extension,  or  the  reduction  of  a 
universal  term  to  the  meaning  of  a  part.  And  the  text  above  cited, 
despite  all  the  efforts  of  a  limiting  scheme,  is  clear  proof  of  a  uni- 
versal atonement. 

4.  Testimony  of  the  Great  Commission. — "And  he  said  unto 
them.  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature.  He  that  believe tli  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."'  This  great  commission  laid 
its  solemn  charge  upon  the  apostles  with  all  the  obligation  and 
authority  which  the  Master,  now  risen  and  with  all  power  in  his 
hand,  could  impose.  So  it  comes  down  the  ages  upon  all  Churches 
and  ministers.  And  so  all  true  Churches  and  ministers  receive  it. 
We  thus  have  certain  indisputable  facts  intimately  related  to  the 
extent  of  the  atonement,  and  decisive  of  its  universality. 

The  very  terms  of  the  great  commission  are  decisive  of  this,  that 
the  Gospel  is  for  all.  And  its  universal  preaching  thk  gospel 
should  bo,  and  in  the  very  nature  of  it  must  be,  the  ''"^  all. 
free  offer  of  saving  grace  in  Christ  to  all.  The  most  rigid  limita- 
tionists  fully  admit  this.''  Indeed,  they  have  no  alternative.  Nor 
need  we  insist  upon  what  no  one  questions. 

'  Mark  xvi,  15,  16. 

-  Symington  :  Atonement  and  Intercession,  pp.  209,  210. 
17 


230  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

The  Gospel  is   the  overture  of  salvation.     All   to   whom  it  is 

preached  may  accept  it  and  be  saved.     To  this  end  it  is 

THE  PRIVILEGE  prcachcd.     And  the  same  privilege  would  ever  accom- 

^^  ^^^'  pany  the  Gospel,  were  it  fully  preached  in  all  the  world. 

Nor  need  we  here  contend  for  what  is  fully  conceded. ' 

It  is  the  duty  of  all  to  whom  the  Gospel  comes  to  accept  it  in 
faith,  and  a  faith  unto  salvation.     The  same  would  be 

SAVING  FAITH  '  •       •  i  »     ii  it  n  mi    • 

THE  DUTY  OF  truo,  wcrc  it  m  the  fullest  sense  preached  to  all.  This 
^^^'  obligation  is  in  the  very  terms  of  the  great  commission. 

Hence,  eternal  destinies  are  determined  according  as  the  Gospel  is 
received  or  rejected  :  ''  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  Only  on  an 
obligation  to  a  true,  saving  faith  in  Christ  could  our  action  in  the 
case  have  such  consequence.  Other  texts  equally  express  or  imply 
the  same  duty  of  a  saving  faith.*  We  shall  have  everlasting  life  or 
shall  perish,  according  as  we  believe  or  believe  not ;  are  in  condem- 
nation or  free  from  it,  according  to  the  same  action  ;  are  heirs  of 
life  eternal  or  under  the  abiding  wrath  of  God,  as  we  believe  on 
the  Son  or  do  not  believe.  Limitationists  concede  and  maintain 
this  duty  of  faith.'  Hence,  we  need  not  further  support  what 
is  not  disputed.  Indeed,  special  account  is  made  of  this  obli- 
gation for  the  vindication  of  divine  justice  in  the  final  doom  of 
unbelievers. 

The  duty  of  a  saving  faith  in  Christ  implies  an  actual  grace  of 
THE  REQUIRED  salvatlon  in  him.  The  required  faith  must  terminate 
FAITH.  ii^  i^ig  redeeming  death.     An  attainable  grace  of  sal- 

vation absolutely  conditions  the  obligation  of  such  a  faith.  But, 
on  a  limited  atonement,  the  Gospel  comes  to  many  for  whom  there 
really  is  no  such  grace.  Nor  will  the  assertion  of  an  intrinsic  suffi- 
ciency for  all  void  this  consequence.  Then  can  this  faith  be  the 
duty  of  any  one  for  whom  there  is  no  saving  grace  ?  How  can  it 
be  ?  It  has  no  objective  truth,  and  would  be  a  trust  in  what  does 
not  exist.  Nor  could  the  salvation  possibly  accrue  upon  the  faith. 
And  has  Christ  enjoined  the  offer  of  an  impossible  blessing  ?  Has 
he  commanded  faith  in  what  is  not  real  ?  Has  he  made  the  unbelief 
of  what  is  not  true  a  sin  of  exceeding  demerit  and  damnableness  ? 
No,  he  has  not  done  any  of  these  things.  We  can  most  positively 
so  deny,  but  only  on  the  ground  of  a  real  atonement  for  all. 

On  a  limited  atonement,  the  duty  of  this  faith  must  be  most  diffi- 
cult— too  difficult,  indeed,  to  be  so  responsible.     The  faith  implies, 

^  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  558,         '  John  iii,  14-16,  18,  36, 
^Princeton  Essays,  First  Series,  p.  387;  Crawford  :  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of 
the  Atonement,  p,  302  ;  Candlisli :  The  Atonement,  pp,  173,  360. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  231 

not  only  an  intrinsically  sufficient,  but  an  actually  sufficient,  atone- 
ment for  every  one  exercising  it.  Faith  in  this  fact  difficulty  of 
of  an  actual  atonement  must  precede,  as  its  necessary  the  faith. 
condition,  the  faith  of  a  saving  trust  in  Christ.  This  is  denied.' 
Both  authors  given  in  the  reference  properly  distinguish  the 
mental  acts  of  one  in  believing  that  Christ  died  for  him,  and 
in  believing  in  him  for  salvation ;  but,  strange  enough,  both  deny 
a  necessary  precedence  to  the  former  act  of  faith,  and,  indeed,  give 
precedence  to  the  latter.  We  know  not  the  mental  philosophy  by 
which  they  place  these  facts  in  this  order.  It  must  originate  in  the 
exigency  of  their  soteriology  rather  than  in  the  careful  study  and 
scientific  use  of  the  facts  of  psychology.  But  no  man  ever  did  or 
can  believe  in  Christ  unto  salvation  without  first  believing  that  he 
died  for  him.  This  is  the  necessary  order  of  the  mental  facts.  And 
it  is  utterly  nugatory  to  plead  that  no  one  is  commanded  first  to 
believe  that  Christ  died  for  him.  This  is  not  the  point ;  the 
necessity  arises,  not  from  the  immediate  command  of  such  a  preced- 
ing faith,  but  from  inevitable  laws  of  the  mind,  under  the  obliga- 
tion of  a  divinely  enjoined  saving  faith  in  Christ.  Such  is  the 
necessary  order  of  kindred  facts  :  "  For  he  that  cometh  to  God  must 
believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently 
seek  him."^  Here  faith  in  God,  as  existing  and  good,  must  pre- 
cede all  successful  coming  to  him  in  an  earnest  seeking  and  a  true 
faith  of  trust  for  his  blessing.  There  is  the  same  necessary  order  of 
facts  respecting  our  faith  in  Christ :  first,  in  believing  that  he  died 
for  us  ;  then,  in  a  sure  trust  of  faith  in  him  for  salvation. 

It  is  here  that,  on  a  limited  atonement,  the  exceeding  difficulty 
of  the  required  faith  arises.  If  Christ  died  for  only  a  point  of  thk 
part,  and,  as  many  hold,  for  only  the  far  smaller  part  of  DiFFicrLir. 
adults,  no  man  has,  nor  can  have,  previous  to  his  conversion,  satis- 
factory evidence  that  there  is  an  atonement  for  him.  And,  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  chance  as  applicable  in  the  case,  the  presump- 
tion is  strongly  against  it.  How,  then,  can  he  savingly  trust  in 
Christ  ?  It  is  nothing  to  the  point  to  answer,  that  he  does  not 
know  that  he  is  left  without  redemption  ;  for  what  he  needs  to  be 
assured  of,  as  the  necessary  condition  of  a  saving  faith  in  Christ, 
is,  that  he  did  redeem  him. 

We  group  the  facts  given  us  under  the  great  commission.     The 
Gospel  is  for  all,  and  in  the  free  overture  of  saving  grace  the  atoxe- 
in  Christ.      Salvation  is  the  privilege  of  all  to  whom  ^^■^'^  ^^^  ^■'^• 
tlie  gracious  overture  is  made.     A  saving  faith  in  the  redemption  of 

'Turrettin:  Atonement  of  Christ,  ■p.  \1S\  Smeaton  :  The  Doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment  as  Taught  by  Christ  Himself,  p.  323.  ''Heb.  xi,  6. 


232  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Christ  is  the  duty  of  all  who  have  the  Gospel.  These  are  not  mere 
inferences,  but  facts  clearly  given  in  the  Scriptures,  and  fully  con- 
ceded by  the  advocates  of  a  limited  atonement.  By  all  the  force  of 
their  logic  they  witness  to  the  fact  of  a  real  atonement  for  all.  They 
have  no  other  ground.  The  overture  of  saving  grace  has  no  other  ; 
nor  the  privilege  of  salvation ;  nor  the  duty  of  a  saving  faith  in 
Christ ;  nor  the  guilt  and  damnableness  of  unbelief.  Therefore, 
these  facts  imperatively  require  a  universal  atonement,  and,  so  re- 
quiring, affirm  its  truth. 

V.  Fallacies  in  Defense  of  Limitatiok. 
The  law  of  scientific  accordance  in  vitally  related  truths  and 
facts  makes  very  serious  trouble  for  the  theory  of  a  limited  atone- 
ment. Certain  very  discordant  but  admitted  facts  require  recon- 
ciliation with  the  limitation,  or,  rather,  with  the  divine  sincerity,  as 
concerned  therein.  We  shall  show  that  the  attempted  reconcilia- 
tion proceeds  with  fallacies,  and,  therefore,  ends  in  fallacy. 

1.  Facts  Admitted. — These  facts  were  given  with  the  great  com- 
mission in  the  previous  section,  and  here  need  only  to  be  recalled. 
The  Gospel  is  for  all.  Salvation  is  the  privilege  of  all  under  the 
Gospel.  A  saving  faith  in  Christ  is  the  duty  of  all  who  hear  the 
Gospel.  Such  are  the  facts.  They  have  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture. Limitationists  fully  admit  them,  as  manifest  in  references 
previously  given.  Such  references  might  be  increased  to  a  great 
number.  No  modern  Calvinistic  author  of  any  influence  will  ques- 
tion them.  The  common  attempt  to  reconcile  them  with  the  divine 
sincerity  is  in  their  full  admission. 

2.  Inconsistent  with  the  Divine  Sincerity. — There  is  here  no 
issue  either  on  the  admitted  facts  or  on  the  divine  sincerity  :  the 
question  respects  the  consistency  of  the  facts  with  that  sincerity, 
on  the  ground  of  a  limited  atonement.  We  assert  their  inconsist- 
ency, and  accuse  their  attempted  reconciliation  of  egregious  fal- 
lacy. On  a  limited  atonement,  the  Gospel  cannot  be  sincerely 
preached  to  all.  Nor  can  salvation  be  the  privilege  of  all.  Nor 
can  a  saving  faith  in  Christ  be  the  duty  of  all,  nor  of  any  for  whom 
his  death  was  not  divinely  destined  as  an  atonement.  Such  a  divine 
overture  of  grace  and  requirement  of  faith  would  be  to  the  unre- 
deemed a  mockery  and  a  cruelty.  These  facts  go  into  the  present 
issue.  There  are  no  other  facts  or  vindicatory  pleas  which  can  void 
the  force  of  their  logic.  They  do  not  implicate  the  divine  sin- 
cerity, but  conclude  the  universality  of  the  atonement  as  the  only 
ground  of  their  consistency  with  that  sincerity. 

3.  Sufficiency  of  Ato?iement  in    Vindication. — The  ground  on 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  AT0NI:MP:\T.  2:^3 

which  limitationists  specially  attempt  a  vindication  of  the  divine 
sincerity  in  a  universal  overture  of  saving  grace,  with  the  other 
admitted  facts,  is  an  alleged  sufficiency  of  the  atonement  for  all.' 
The  fact  is  so  familiar  that  there  is  but  slight  reason  for  any  ref- 
erence. We  have  previously  shown  how  fully  the  advocates  of  a 
limited  atonement  maintain  its  intrinsic  sufficiency,  in  just  what 
Christ  did  and  suffered,  for  the  salvation  of  all  men.  Thus  they 
have  their  position  of  defense  in  the  present  issue.  Whether,  on 
their  doctrine  of  atonement,  there  is  a  real  and  available  sufficiency, 
such  as  will  answer  for  the  required  vindication,  we  shall  directly 
consider.  For  the  present  it  may  suffice  to  note  the  ground  on 
which  the  vindication  is  attempted. 

4.  True  Sense  of  Sufficiency. — We  must  distinguish  between 
a  mere  intrinsic  and  an  actual  sufficiency.  There  is  reason  for  the 
distinction.  Satisfactionists  fully  recognize  it,  especially  in  appli- 
cation to  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ.  An  intrinsic  sufficiency 
is  from  what  a  thing  is  in  its  own  capabilitj^  An  actual  sufficiency 
is  from  its  appropriation.  A  life-boat  may  have  ample  capacity  for 
the  rescue  of  twenty  shipwrecked  mariners  ;  but  if  appropriated, 
and  limited  by  the  appropriation,  to  the  rescue  of  only  ten,  the 
actual  and  available  sufficiency  is  only  so  much.  One  man  has 
money  enough  for  the  liberation  of  twenty  prisoners  for  debt ;  but 
whether  it  shall  be  available,  and  so  actually  sufficient,  depends 
upon  his  use  or  appropriation  of  it.  Even  if  he  should  appropriate 
the  whole  sum,  but  at  the  same  time  restrict  it  to  the  benefit  of 
a  fixed  number — ten  of  the  twenty — then,  while  intrinsically  suffi- 
cient for  the  liberation  of  all,  it  would  be  actually  sufficient  and 
available  for  only  the  designated  ten.  The  atonement  of  satisfaction 
must  yield  to  such  a  consequence.  The  redemptive  mediation  of 
Christ,  in  just  what  he  did  and  suffered,  has  intrinsic  sufficiency 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  but  there  is  a  limiting  divine  destina- 
tion. Such  are  the  facts  as  given  by  satisfactionists  themselves. 
The  sufficiency  for  all  is  only  potential,  not  actual  from  a  universal 
destination.  But  for  the  divine  vindication  in  a  universal  overture 
of  saving  grace  in  Christ,  and  in  holding  all  to  so  responsible  a  duty 
of  faith  in  him,  a  mere  intrinsic  sufficiency  will  not  answer.  Only 
an  actual  and  available  sufficiency  will  so  answer. 

5.  Sufficiency  only  with  Divine  Destination. — The  sufferings  of 
Christ  have  no  atoning  value  except  as  they  were  vicariously  en- 
dured for  sinners  with  the  purpose  of  an  atonement.  His  incarna- 
tion and  death  are  conceivable  and  possible  entirely  apart  from  the 

'  Princeton  Essays,  First  Series,  p.  291  ;  Symington  :  Atonement  and  Inter- 
cession, pp.  186,  213. 
17 


234  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

purposes  of  redemption.  In  that  case  they  could  have  no  atoning 
element.  All  atonement  is  absolutely  conditioned  by  his  so  sufEer- 
ing  for  sinners. 

The  extent  of  the  atonement  is  thus  determined  by  its  divine  des- 
DETERMiNiNG  tiuatiou.  Thls  agrees  with  the  above  principle.  And, 
DESTINATION,  ^s  wc  havc  seen,  it  is  a  primary  principle  in  the 
doctrine  of  satisfaction.  Hence,  as  atonement  is  necessarily  con- 
ditioned on  the  divine  appointment  and  acceptance  of  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  as  a  substitute  in  behalf  of  sinners,  so  the  divine  destina- 
tion absolutely  fixes  the  limit  of  its  extent.  There  is  no  atonement 
beyond.  As  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  an  atonement  for  sin  only 
with  their  divine  destination  to  that  end,  so  they  have  no  atoning 
value  for  any  one  beyond  those  for  whom  they  were  redemptively 
destined.  And  the  plea  of  a  sufficient  atonement  for  all,  while 
its  limited  destination  is  firmly  maintained,  is  the  sheerest  fallacy. 
It  is  as  utterly  insufficient  for  all  for  whom  it  was  not  divinely 
destined  as  though  no  atonement  had  been  made  for  any. 
Hence  the  alleged  ground  on  which  it  is  attempted  to  ^indicate 
the  divine  sincerity  in  the  universal  overture  of  saving  grace,  and 
the  imperative  requirement  of  saving  faith  in  Christ,  is  no  ground 
at  all. 

6.  Limited  in  the  Sclieme  of  Satisfaction. — If  we  test  the  assump- 
tion of  a  universal  sufficiency  in  the  atonement  by  the  principles  of 
the  satisfaction  theory,  we  shall  further  see  how  utterly  groundless 
it  is.  This  is  an  entirely  fair  method.  For  unless  there  be  a  suf- 
ficiency according  to  these  principles,  it  is  the  sheerest  assumption, 
and  the  vindicatory  use  of  it  utterly  groundless.  And  this  we 
maintain,  that  the  satisfaction  atonement  is,  from  its  own  princi- 
ples, of  limited  sufficiency. 

In  this  theory  atonement  is  by  substitutional  punishment  in  satis- 
DEcisiTE  faction  of  justice.     Sin  must  be  punished  according  to 

FACTS.  its  desert.    Any  omission   would   be    an   injustice  in 

God.  So  the  theory  maintains,  as  we  have  shown.  There  is  no 
salvation  for  any  sinner  except  through  a  substitute  in  penalty. 
There  is  no  atonement  for  any  one  except  in  penal  substitution. 
But  by  divine  covenant  and  destination  Christ  suffered  the  punish- 
ment of  sin  for  only  an  elect  part,  not  for  all.  So  the  theory 
asserts.  Such  an  atonement  is  as  utterly  insufficient  for  any  and 
all  for  whose  sins  penal  satisfaction  is  not  rendered  to  justice  as 
though  no  atonement  were  made,  or  there  were  no  Christ  to  make 
one. 

From  its  own  principles  the  atonement  of  satisfaction  is  neces- 
Barily  efficient  just  as  broadly  as  it  is  sufficient.     The  necessary 


AUTHORITIES. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  235 

elements  of  its  sufficiency  must  give  it  efficiency  in  tlie  actual 
salvation  of  all  for  whom  it  is  made.  If  Christ,  as  accepted  sub- 
stitute, took  the  place  of  an  elect  part  under  both  precept  and  pen- 
alty, and  rendered  full  satisfaction  in  respect  of  both,  of  course  they 
must  all  be  saved.  Their  repentance  and  faith  are  the  purchase  of 
redemptive  grace,  and  must  take  their  place  as  necessary  facts  in  a 
process  of  salvation  monergistically  wrought. 

While  such  is  the  logic  of  the  principles  of  satisfaction,  its  advo- 
cates fully  support  the  same  view.  The  fact  was  given 
in  previous  citations  and  references.  Many  such  might 
be  added,  though  a  few  will  suffice.  "  His  atonement  may  be  truly 
eaJled  *a  finished  work,'  securing  not  only  a  possible  salvation,  but 
an  actual  salvation."'  ''  If  the  fruits  of  the  death  of  Christ  be  to 
be  communicated  unto  us  upon  a  condition,  and  that  condition  to 
be  among  those  fruits,  and  be  itself  to  be  absolutely  communicated 
upon  no  condition,  then  all  the  fruits  of  the  death  of  Christ  are  as 
absolutely  procured  for  them  for  whom  he  died  as  if  no  condition 
had  been  prescribed  ;  for  these  things  come  all  to  one.  .  .  .  Faith, 
which  is  this  condition,  is  itself  procured  by  the  death  of  Christ  for 
them  for  whom  he  died,  to  be  freely  bestowed  on  them,  without  the 
prescription  of  any  such  condition  as  on  whose  fulfilling  the  colla- 
tion of  it  should  depend."  ^  "  But  God,  in  his  infinite  mercy,  hav- 
ing determined  to  save  a  multitude  whom  no  man  could  number, 
gave  them  to  his  Son  as  his  inheritance,  provided  he  would  assume 
their  nature  and  fulfill  all  righteousness  in  their  stead.  In  the  ac- 
complishment of  this  plan  Christ  did  come  into  the  world,  and  did 
obey  and  suffer  in  the  place  of  those  thus  given  to  him,  and  for 
their  salvation.  This  was  the  definite  object  of  his  mission,  and, 
therefore,  his  death  had  a  reference  to  them  which  it  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  to  those  whom  God  determined  to  leave  to  the  just  rec- 
ompense of  their  sins."'  Respecting  the  atonement  for  the  elect: 
'*  Is  it  any  thing  short  of  a  real  and  personal  substitution  of  Christ  in 
their  room  and  stead,  as  their  representative  and  surety,  fulfilling 
all  their  legal  obligations,  and  undertaking  and  meeting  all  their 
legal  liabilities  ?  Is  it  any  thing  short  of  such  a  substitution  as 
must  insure  that,  in  consequence  of  it,  they  are  now,  by  a  legal 
right — in  terms  of  the  law  which  he  as  their  covenant  head  has 
magnified  and  made  honorable  in  their  behalf — free  from  the  im- 
putation of  legal  blame  ;  that  as  one  with  him  in  his  righteousness 
they  are  judicially  absolved  and  acquitted,  justified  from  all  their 

'  Crawford  :  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  p.  200. 

'  Owen  :  Works  (Goold's),  vol.  x,  p.  450. 

'  Hodge :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  547. 


236  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

transgressions,  and  invested  with  a  valid  legal  title  to  eternal  life 
and  salvation  ?  "  ' 

Such  is  the  atonement  of  satisfaction.  From  its  own  nature  it 
SUCH  IS  THIS  must  save  all  for  whom  it  is  made.  It  has  ever  waged 
ATONEMKNT.  -^^^r  upou  Arminlauism  for  the  denial  of  this  causal  effi- 
ciency as  being  a  denial  of  the  true  nature  of  atonement.  It  is  such 
that,  were  it  for  all,  then  all  must  be  saved.  Hence  it  is  denied 
that  it  is  for  all.  A  limited  actual  salvation  is  ever  given  as  the 
proof  of  a  limited  atonement.  Such  is  the  only  possible  atonement. 
The  facts  of  substitution  in  Christ  necessary  to  an  atonement  must 
be  efficient  in  the  salvation  of  all  whom  he  substitutes. 

Is  such  an  atonement  sufficient  for  all  ?  It  is  made,  as  main- 
LiMiTED  tained,  on  a  covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

SUFFICIENCY,  gy  thclr  conscuting  pleasure  it  is  for  a  given  number  of 
elect  souls,  and  for  no  others.  We  accept  the  divine  destination  as 
the  determining  law  of  its  extent.  We  give  full  credit  to  its  advo- 
cates for  asserting  its  intrinsic  sufficiency  for  all.  But  an  intrinsic 
or  potential  sufficiency  is  one  thing,  while  an  actual  and  available 
sufficiency  is  another,  Eecurring  to  the  citations  of  limitationists 
in  the  assertion  of  this  sufficiency  for  all,  we  often  find  a  qualified 
expression  after  this  manner  :  The  mediation  of  Christ,  in  just 
what  he  did  and  suffered,  is  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  all  men, 
had  it  pleased  the  Father  and  the  Son  to  destine  it  for  all.  But 
this  destination  is  denied.  It  is  the  determining  fact  of  a  limited 
atonement.  Hence,  on  this  doctrine,  there  are  many  whose  place 
Christ  did  not  take  in  either  precept  or  penalty.  The  fact  con- 
cludes the  question  of  sufficiency  against  the  limitationists.  They 
must  not  ignore  their  own  absolutely  limiting  doctrine,  nor  must 
they,  in  the  exigency  of  defense,  be  allowed  to  call  a  contingent 
sufficiency — a  sufficiency  that  might  have  been  but  is  not — a  real 
sufficiency.     They  must  abide  by  their  own  principles. 

How  can  there  be  a  sufficient  atonement  for  the  non-elect,  when 
FOR  ONLY  A  accordlng  to  the  principles  and  averments  of  this  the- 
PART.  QJ.J  there  is  for  them  no  atonement?    Will  limitation- 

lets  answer?  Did  Christ  die  for  the  non-elect?  Did  he  fulfill  for 
them  the  righteousness  which  the  divine  law  imperatively  requires, 
and  without  which  there  is  no  salvation?  Did  he  suffer  the  merited 
punishment  of  their  sins,  also  held  to  be  absolutely  necessary  to 
their  discharge?  A  limited  atonement  has  only  a  negative  answer. 
Where,  then,  is  the  sufficiency  for  them?    The  doctrine  must  deny 

'  Candlish  :  The  Atonement,  pp.  247,  348.  For  like  views  see  also  Smeaton  : 
The  Apostles^  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  pp.  537-540  ;  Hill  :  Lectures  in  Divin- 
ity, pp.  510,  511  ;  Witsius :  The  Covenants,  vol.  i,  p.  306. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  23V 

its  most  fundamental  principles  even  to  pretend  to  a  sufficiency. 
The  atonement  is  now,  but  the  work  of  Christ  in  making  it  is  in 
past  time.  Its  extent  was  then  absolutely  determined.  It  is  for 
those  for  whom  it  was  made,  and  never  can  be  for  others.  The 
principles  of  the  doctrine  so  determine  it.  An  immutable  divine 
decree  so  bounds  it.'  And  only  with  egregious  fallacy  can  there  be 
even  a  pretense  of  sufficiency  in  the  atonement  for  the  non-elect. 

Then,  on  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement,  it  is  impossible  to 
reconcile  the  free  and  universal  overture  of  saving  grace 

RFSITLT 

in  Christ,  and  the  imperative  duty  of  all  who  hear  the 
Gospel  savingly  to  believe  in  him,  with  the  divine  sincerity.  There 
is  for  many  no  atonement  or  saving  grace.  The  offered  grace  is  not 
in  the  offer.  The  utmost  faith  is  utterly  groundless  and  delusive. 
Could  one  non-elect  soul,  held  to  the  duty  of  a  saving  trust  in  Christ 
under  the  penalty  of  endless  perdition,  have  a  faith  equal  in 
strength  to  the  combined  faith  of  millions  saved,  it  would  be  fruit- 
less of  forgiveness  and  salvation  to  him,  as  a  soul  without  the  sub- 
stitution of  Christ  cannot  be  forgiven  and  saved.  So  the  doctrine 
of  satisfaction  must  affirm.  What  is  the  conclusion?  The  real  and 
unquestioned  facts  are  still  before  us.  On  the  one  hand  are  the 
universal  overture  of  saving  grace  and  the  responsible  duty  of  sav- 
ing faith  ;  on  the  other,  the  divine  sincerity  therein.  There  is  no 
issue  between  them.  There  is  no  question  of  any  such  issue.  The 
question  is  whether  the  former  are  consistent  with  the  latter  on  the 
ground  of  a  limited  atonement?  Certainly  they  are  not.  Nor  can 
the  divine  sincerity  be  thereon  vindicated.  We  give  this  discus- 
sion of  the  question  in  proof.  The  attempted  reconciliation  pro- 
ceeds with  fallacies  and  ends  in  fallacy.  The  inevitable  conclusion 
is  the  universality  of  the  atonement. 

7.  Assumption  of  Only  a  Seeming  Inconsistency. — With  seeming 
doubt  as  to  the  satisfactoriness  of  the  preceding  defense,  it  is 
assumed  that,  after  all,  the  admitted  facts  may  not  be  inconsistent 
with  the  divine  sincerity  ;  that  our  inability  to  reconcile  them  is  not 
conclusive  of  an  absolute  contrariety  ;  that  to  higher  intelligences, 
and  especially  to  God,  they  may  appear  in  full  harmony.  **  That 
we  are  incapable  of  reconciling  them  does  not  prove  them  to  be  irrec- 
oncilable. God  may  be  capable  of  reconciling  them ;  creatures  of 
a  higher  intellectual  and  moral  rank  may  see  their  reconcilableness; 
or  we  ourselves,  when  elevated  to  a  brighter  sphere  of  being,  may 
yet  be  fully  equal  to  the  difficult  problem." '  But  so  conjectural  a 
solution  will  not  answer  for  so  real  a  difficulty.     And  there  are  con- 

'  The  Westm/inster  Confession,  chap,  iii,  sees,  iii-vii. 
'  Symington:  Atonement  and  Intercession,  p.  210. 


238  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

trarieties  absolutely  irreconcilable.  Sucli  is  the  case  here.  Our 
highest  reason  must  so  pronounce.  We  cannot  rationally  go  behind 
it,  not  even  hypothetically.  We  may  accept  in  faith  what  is  above 
our  reason,  but  we  cannot  by  any  mere  conjecture  solve,  nor  even 
relieve,  a  diflBculty  which  is  contradictory  to  our  reason.  This  is  the 
insuperable  difficulty  here.  God  cannot  sincerely  offer  saving  grace 
to  any  soul  when  the  grace  is  not  in  the  offer.  Nor  can  he  right- 
eously impose  the  duty  of  a  saving  faith  in  Christ  upon  any  one  for 
whom  there  is  no  salvation  in  him. 

8.  Mixed  State  of  Elect  and  Non-elect. — Another  vindication  is 
attempted  on  the  assumption  of  a  necessity  arising  out  of  the  mixed 
state  of  elect  and  non-elect.  The  only  alternative  to  an  indiscrim- 
inate offer  of  grace  and  requirement  of  faith  would  be  an  open  dis- 
crimination of  the  two  classes.  *'  The  warrant  of  faith  is  the  testi- 
mony of  Grod  in  the  Gospel.  And,  it  may  be  asked,  .could  not  this 
testimony  have  been  made  only  to  those  to  whom  it  was  his  design 
to  give  grace  to  receive  it?  We  answer:  Not  without  doing  away 
with  that  mixed  state  of  human  existence  which  God  has  apj^ointed 
for  important  purposes  ;  not  without  making  a  premature  disclos- 
ure of  who  are  the  objects  of  his  special  favor  and  who  are  not,  to 
the  entire  subversion  of  that  moral  economy  under  which  it  is  the 
good  pleasure  of  his  will  that  men  should  subsist  in  this  world  ; 
not  without  even  subverting  the  very  design  of  salvation  by  faith."' 

The  reasons  alleged  for  secrecy  in  the  elective  and  reprobative 
NO  viNDicA-  purposes  of  God  are  Avitliout  force  ;  certainly  without 
TioN.  sufficient  force  for  his  vindication  in  a  graceless  offer  of 

saving  grace  in  Christ.  The  mixed  state  of  elect  and  reprobate 
would  continue  as  it  is.  The  moral  economy  under  which  we  live 
would  remain.  It  is  God^s  own,  and  of  his  appointment.  And 
has  he  so  ordered  it  as  to  require  of  him  a  free  overture  of  saving 
grace  to  many  for  whom  there  is  none  ?  Nor  would  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation by  faith  be  subverted.  Many,  without  any  question  of  an 
atonement  for  them,  refuse  all  saving  faith  in  Christ ;  while  many, 
equally  without  doubt  of  an  atonement  for  them,  do  savingly 
believe  in  him.  With  this  discrimination,  there  would  still  be  a 
proper  sphere  of  saving  faith  for  the  elect ;  and,  on  the  doctrine  of  sat- 
isfaction, the  faith  would  be  under  the  same  determining  law  as  now. 

This  disclosure  would  accord  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  be 
far  better  than  a  false  show  of  grace.  It  must  be  made  some  time, 
and  is  just  the  same  if  made  now.  Nor  would  the  destiny  of  any 
soul  be  affected  thereby.  Destiny  is  determined  by  the  decree  of 
God,  not  by  the  disclosure  of  its  elective  discriminations.     Belie v- 

'  Symington:  Atonement  and  Intercession,  p.  212. 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  239 

ers  and  unbelievers  would  be  the  very  same — neither  more  nor  less  nor 
other  in  either  class,  as  the  immutable  decree  of  election  and  preteri- 
tion  is  immutable.  There  is  no  urgent  reason  lor  this  indiscriminate 
overture  of  partial  grace  ;  while  no  urgency  could  justify  it.  Let  the 
atonement  be  preached,  with  the  announcement  of  its  partialism,  and 
that  the  non-elect  have  no  interest  in  it  and  no  duty  respecting  it, 
and  the  result,  as  determined  by  an  absolute  sovereignty  working 
monergistically,  will  be  the  very  same.  And  a  limited  atonement 
still  contradicts  facts  divinely  given.    It  must,  therefore,  be  an  error. 

9.  Distinction  of  Secret  and  Preceptive  Divine  Will. — As  a  last 
resort,  the  reconciliation  of  this  overture  of  grace  and  ^vorsk  than 
requirement  of  faith  with  the  divine  sincerity  is  f'tT'LE. 
attempted  on  a  distinction  between  the  secret  or  decretive  and  the 
preceptive  will  of  God.  "  The  purposes  of  God  are  not  the  rule  of 
our  duty,  and,  whatever  God  may  design  to  do,  we  are  to  act  in 
accordance  with  his  preceptive  Avill."'  "  The  Gospel  call  may  be 
regarded  as  expressive  of  man's  duty  rather  than  of  the  divine 
intention."' '  Is  this  reasoning?  The  character  of  Dr.  Hodge  and 
Dr.  Symington  will  not  allow  us  to  question  its  sincerity.  But  can 
the  precepts  and  purposes  of  God  run  counter  to  each  other  ?  Can 
he  openly  offer  a  grace,  and  with  the  forms  of  gracious  invitation 
and  promise,  which  he  secretly  intends  not  to  give,  and  by  an  eter- 
nal purpose  withholds?  Can  he  openly  command  the  duty  of  a 
saving  faith  upon  any  one  for  whom  there  is  no  saving  grace,  and 
whom  his  eternal  decree  absolutely  dooms  to  the  perdition  of  sin? 
How  could  these  things  be  without  duplicity?  And  it  is  a  marvel- 
ous supposition  that  the  Gospel,  as  the  invitation  and  command  of 
God,  may  represent  our  privilege  and  duty,  conveying  the  one  and 
imposing  the  other,  but  not  his  secret  will  and  decree  respecting  us. 
Yet  it  is  only  on  such  a  supposition  that  this  attempted  vindication 
can  have  any  pertinence  whatever.  Indeed,  the  attempt  proceeds 
upon  the  assumption  of  this  contrariety.  A  doctrine  with  such 
exigency  of  defense  cannot  be  true. 

The  atonement,  as  a  provision  of  infinite  love  for  a  common  race 
in  a  common  ruin  of  sin,  with  its  unrestricted  overture  of  grace 
and  requirement  of  saving  faith  in  Christ,  is,  and  must  be,  an 
atonement  for  all.. 

Anselm  :  Cur  Dens  Homo  (translated  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1844,  1845)  ;  Gro- 
tius  :  Defensio  Fidei  Catholicce  de  Satisfactione  Christi  (translated  in  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  1879);  Tnrrettin  :  The  Atonement  of  Christ;  Candlish  :  The  Atone- 
ment ;  Magee  :    Atonement  and  Sacrifice ;   Smith,   John   Pye  :  Sacrifice  and 

'  Princeton  Essays,  First  Series,  p.  285. 

^  Symington:  Atonement  and  Intercession,  p.  211. 


240  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Priesthood;  Smeaton  :  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement  as  Taught  by  Christ;  Doc 
trine  of  the  Atonement  as  Taught  by  the  Apostles  ;  Crawford  :  The  Scripture 
Doctrine  of  Atonement  ;  Cave  :  The  Scriptural  DoctHne  of  Sacrifice ;  Bruce  ; 
The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  lect.  vii ;  Hodge,  A,  A.  :  The  Atonement ;  Jenkyn : 
The  Extent  of  the  Atonement ;  Oxenham  :  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement ; 
Symington  :  Atonement  and  Intercession  ;  Maurice  :  The  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice  ; 
Bushnell :  The  Vicarious  Sacrifice;  Forgiveness  and  Law ;  Eandles :  Substitution: 
Atonement ;  Gilbert  :  The  Christian  Atonement  ;  Dale  :  The  Atonement;  Barnes  : 
The  Atonement  ;  Wardlaw  :  Nature  and  Extent  of  the  Atonement  ;  Campbell : 
Nature  of  the  Atonement ;  Young  :  The  Life  and  Light  of  Men  ;  Du  Bose  :  Sote- 
riology  of  the  Neiv  Testament  ;  Thompson  :  The  Atoning  Work  of  Christ,  Bamp- 
ton  Lectures,  1853  ;  Edwards,  L.  :  Doctnne  of  the  Atonement ;  Lias  :  The  Atone- 
ment Viewed  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Difficulties,  Hulsean  Lectures,  1884  ;  The 
Atonement :  Discourses  and  Treatises  by  Edwards,  Smalley,  Maxcy,  Emmons, 
Griffin,  Burge,  and  Weeks,  with  an  Introductory  Essay  by  Edwards  A.  Park. 


BENEFITS  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  241 


THE  SALVATION   IN   CHBIST. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Benefits  of  the  Atonement. 

The  second  division  of  soteriology  has  for  its  subject  the  salva- 
tion in  Christ.  The  supreme  aim  of  his  mission  was  to  save  us.' 
This  fact  gives  propriety  to  our  representative  formula,  the  salva- 
tion in  Christ. 

However,  the  subject  is  much  broader  than  the  mere  idea  of  sal- 
vation. There  are  great  facts  of  the  salvation  which  scope  of  the 
embody  fundamental  truths  of  Christian  theology,  and  subject. 
which  must  be  separately  treated.  We  may  instance  justification 
and  regeneration.  Besides,  there  are  other  benefits  of  the  atone- 
ment than  an  actual  salvation.  There  must  be  prior  unconditional 
benefits,  else  the  actual  salvation  could  not  be  possible.  "We  are 
not  saved  in  a  mere  mechanical  way,  or  by  the  operation  of  an  absolute 
grace,  but  as  free  agents,  and  on  a  compliance  with  divinely  instituted 
terms.  Therefore  we  must  possess  the  moral  ability  for  such  a  com- 
pliance. But  we  have  not  such  ability  simply  on  the  footing  of 
nature.  Our  moral  state  is  in  itself,  or  simply  as  consequent  to  the 
Adamic  fall,  without  power  unto  the  repentance  and  faith  necessary 
to  salvation.  Therefore  we  must  be  the  recipients  of  certain  uncon- 
ditional benefits  of  the  atonement,  certain  gracious  helps  whereby 
we  may  be  able  to  meet  the  terms  of  the  salvation  provided  in  Christ. 

Thus  arises  the  question  of  unconditional  benefits  of  the  atone- 
ment, benefits  prior  to  the  actual  salvation,  and  prepar-  two  classes 
atory  to  its  attainment.  There  is  specially  the  question  of  benefits. 
of  a  gracious  free  agency.  There  are  other  initial  benefits  which 
are  purely  unconditional  in  their  mode.  We  thus  assume  a  division 
of  the  benefits  of  the  atonement  into  two  classes:  a  class  of  im- 
mediate benefits,  and  a  class  of  conditional  benefits.  This  distinc- 
tion will  help  us  to  clearer  views  of  the  economy  of  salvation. 

I.  Immediate  Benefits. 

By  immediate  benefits  of  the  atonement  we  mean  such  as  are  with- 
out any  condition  in  our  own  agency.     So  far  as  the  present  point 
»  Luke  ii,  10,  11  ;  John  iii,  16,  17  ;  1  Tim.  i,  15  ;  1  John  iv,  14. 


242  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

is  concerned,  this  is  their  distinction  from  the  benefits  which  are  so 
conditioned. 

1.  The  Prese7it  Life. — Death  was  the  penalty  of  disobedience 
in  the  Edenic  probation.  "  But  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in  the  day  that  thou  eat- 
est  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die. '' '  This  must  have  meant  a  physical 
death,  as  well  as  a  moral  or  spiritual  death.  Indeed,  if  we  make 
PENALTY  OF  ^^1  distiuction,  the  former  must  be  accepted  as  the 
EDENIC  LAW.  primary  sense.  Such  is  clearly  the  meaning  of  other 
texts  which  relate  to  the  more  direct  consequences  of  Adam's  sin.* 
The  penalty  of  disobedience  in  the  Edenic  probation  must  have 
meant  the  physical  death  of  our  progenitors. 

The  execution  of  the  penalty  according  to  the  terms  of  the  law 
DELAY  OF  would  have  precluded  the  existence  of  the  race.  Our 
JUDGMENT.  progenitors  would  have  died  in  the  day  of  their  trans- 
gression. There  is  no  apparent  reason  for  any  delay  of  judgment 
except  the  intervention  of  an  economy  of  redemption.  Without 
such  an  economy  there  are  weighty  reasons  why  they  should  not 
have  been  spared.  The  propagation  of  the  race  in  a  helpless  moral 
ruin,  as  naturally  consequent  to  the  Adamic  fall,  could  not  be 
THE  LIFE  OF  rcconcilcd  with  the  goodness  of  God.  It  follows  that 
THE  RACE.  the  redemptive  mediation  of  Christ  is  the  ground  of 
the  existence  of  the  race.  An  economy  of  grace  anticipated  the 
judicial  treatment  of  the  first  sin.  Eve  thus  received  the  promise 
of  a  seed  which  should  bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent.^  There  is 
deep  meaning  in  this  promise.  It  unfolds  into  the  annunciation  to 
Mary  and  the  birth  of  a  son  who  should  be  called  Jesus,  the  Son 
of  God.^ 

No  special  question  of  theodicy  arises  at  this  point ;  none  which 
RESPECTING  did  not  arisB  in  the  treatment  of  the  primitive  proba- 
THEODicY.  tion  and  fall  of  man.  While  existence  may  become  an 
evil,  in  itself  it  may  still  be  a  good.  Many  a  blessing  of  the  pres- 
ent life  may  become  an  evil ;  many  a  blessing  does  become  an  evil. 
It  is  not  therefore  an  evil  in  itself ;  it  is  still  a  good.  The  evil 
arises  from  a  wrong  use  of  it.  Such  use  is  avoidable.  We  cannot 
call  that  an  evil  which  has  in  it  the  possibility  of  much  good,  and 
which  can  become  an  evil  only  by  a  wrong  use.  Probation  under- 
lies our  secular  as  well  as  our  moral  life.  If  the  economy  is  right 
in  the  former  it  cannot  be  wrong  in  the  latter.  A  probationary 
economy  in  our  secular  life  arises  necessarily  from  our  personal  con- 
stitution.    We  cannot  separate  the  two.     If  we  would  exclude  the 

1  Gen.  ii,  17.  -  Rom.  v,  12  ;  1  Cor.  xv,  21,  32. 

s  Gen.  iii,  15.  •»  Luke  i,  30-35. 


BENEFITS  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  243 

probation  we  must  deny  the  personality  of  man  and  subject  him  to 
the  dominance  of  mechanical  forces.  This  would  despoil  him  of 
all  tiie  better  powers  of  his  nature  which  are  active  in  his  secular 
life,  and  which  may  render  that  life  happy  and  noble.  Moral  pro- 
bation is,  indeed,  a  far  deeper  reality  ;  but  by  so  much  moral  proba- 
is  man  the  loftier  in  his  nature.  Nor  can  we  any  more  ''''^''•'• 
separate  a  moral  responsibility  from  the  moral  constitution  of  man 
than  we  can  separate  a  secular  responsibility  from  his  personal  con- 
stitution. The  vindication  of  providence  in  our  moral  probation 
lies  in  its  possibilities  of  good — the  good  of  moral  worth,  and  the 
good  of  holy  blessedness  forever.  Such  are  the  possibilities  of  that 
existence  which  Ave  receive  as  an  immediate  benefit  of  the  atone- 
ment in  Christ. 

2.  Gracious  Help  for  AIL — There  are  two  prof ound  relationships 
of  mankind  :  one,  to  the  Adamic  fall ;  the  other,  to  the  atonement 
in  Christ.  As  through  the  one  there  is  a  universal  corruption  of 
liuman  nature,  so  through  the  other  there  is  gracious  help  for  all. 
It  is  only  on  the  ground  of  such  a  universal  grace  that  the  actual 
moral  state  of  the  race  can  be  placed  in  harmony  with  the  accepted 
doctrine  of  native  depravity. 

What  would  be  the  moral  state  of  the  race  if  left  in  subjection  to 
the  unrestrained  or  unrelieved  consequences  of  the  moral  s 
Adamic  fall  ?  The  answer  is  given  in  the  doctrine  of  '^^ 
total  depravity,  a  doctrine  so  uniformly  accepted  and  maintained 
by  orthodox  Churches  that  it  may  properly  be  called  catholic.  The 
doctrine  is,  that  man  is  utterly  evil;  that  all  the  tendencies  and  im- 
pulses of  his  nature  are  toward  the  evil;  that  he  is  powerless  for  any 
good,  without  any  disposition  to  the  good,  and  under  a  moral  neces- 
sity of  sinning.  Such  is  the  moral  state  of  mankind  as  maintained 
in  the  doctrinal  anthropology  which  may  properly  be  called  Augus- 
tinian.  On  this  question  Arminianism  differs  little  from  Augus- 
tinianism,  so  long  as  man  is  viewed  simply  in  his  Adamic  relation. 

If  the  moral  nature  is  utterly  corrupt,  and  there  is  no  relieving 
or  helping  grace  of  the  atonement,  there  can  be  no  tend-  hkk  as  onlt 
encies  to  the  good,  no  response  of  our  nature  to  the  *^"^'^- 
motives  of  the  good.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  in  such  a  state 
there  could  be  any  sense  of  moral  duty,  or  any  conscious  incentives 
to  morality  and  religion,  or  any  law  of  moral  integrity  in  our  com- 
mercial or  civil  life,  or  any  of  the  amenities  and  charities  which 
bless  and  beautify  our  social  life.  From  a  nature  totally  corrupt, 
and  wholly  without  relief  or  restraint,  only  evil  could  proceed. 
Such  a  nature  would  be  demonian,  and  the  life  of  the  race  proceed- 
ing from  it  utterly  evil. 


state 

THE  RACK. 


244  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

The  life  of  the  race  is  not  such  in  fact.  In  saying  this  we  do  nut 
LiFK  NOT  ALL  foiget  thc  cnoimities  of  moral  evil  in  the  world.  Much 
EVIL.  of  this  evil,  however,  is  consciously  committed  against 

a  light  clearly  visible  to  the  moral  eye,  and  against  the  remon- 
strances of  conscience ;  so  that  even  here  there  are  manifestations 
of  a  moral  restraint  which  could  not  spring  from  a  nature  totally 
corrupt.  Further,  these  enormities  of  evil  are  not  the  instant 
product  of  our  nature,  but  the  outcome  of  a  habit  of  evil-doing  ;  a 
habit  strengthened  by  long  practice,  and  through  which  the  re- 
straints of  conscience  have  been  stifled  and  the  native  tendencies 
to  evil  intensified.  And,  despite  all  these  enormities,  the  history 
of  the  race  is  replete  with  the  evidences  of  a  moral  and 

A  MORAL  AND  .  ^  . 

RELIGIOUS  religious  nature  in  man.  That  he  is  morally  and  re- 
NATURE.  ligiously  constituted  is  affirmed  by  the  most  scientific 

anthropology.  There  could  be  no  proof  of  such  a  constitution  with- 
out the  activities  of  this  nature ;  but  these  activities  are  manifest 
in  all  human  history.  There  is  a  conscience  in  man,  a  sense  of 
God  and  duty,  a  moral  reason  which  approves  the  good  and  repro- 
bates the  evil.  Only  thus  can  man  be  a  law  unto  himself.^  These 
facts  of  our  moral  and  religious  nature  are  practical  forces  in  favor 
of  the  good  and  against  the  evil.  They  are  such  in  the  absence  of 
spiritual  regeneration.  Our  social  life  is  not  wholly  conventional 
and  heartless ;  our  commercial  life,  not  wholly  secular  or  selfish  ; 
our  civil  life,  not  without  many  examples  of  moral  integrity.  This 
has  ever  been  true,  even  of  heathen  countries. 

What  is  the  conclusion?  We  must  either  replace  the  doctrine  of 
DOCTRINAL  total  dcpravlty  by  a  Semi-Pelagianism  or  admit  a  gra- 
REsuLT.  cious  help  for  all  men  as  an  immediate  benefit  of  the 

atonement  in  Christ.  Arminianism  readily  accepts  the  latter  alter- 
native, and  leaves  to  any  who  reject  the  theory  of  such  gracious 
help  the  difficult,  indeed  the  impossible,  task  of  adjusting  the  doc- 
trine of  total  depravity  to  the  moral  and  religious  facts  of  human 
history.  The  Wesleyan  Arminianism  has  not  left  in  any  doubt  its 
position  on  this  question.  The  question  itself  is  so  cardinal  in  our 
system  of  theology  that  we  here  cite  a  few  leading  authorities  in 
order  to  set  our  position  in  the  clearest  light. 

We  begin  with  Mr.  Wesley  himself.  ''  For  allowing  that  all  the 
VIEW  OF  WES-  souls  of  men  are  dead  in  sin  by  nature,  this  excuses 
"^^-  none,  seeing  there  is  no  man  that  is  in  a  state  of  mere 

nature;  there  is  no  man,  unless  he  has  quenched  the  Spirit,  that  is 
wholly  void  of  the  grace  of  God.  No  man  living  is  entirely  desti- 
tute of  what  is  vulgarly  called  natural  conscience.     But  this  is  not 

'  Eom.  ii,  14,  15. 


BENEFITS  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  245 

natural ;  it  is  more  properly  termed  preventing  grace.  Every  man 
has  a  greater  or  less  measure  of  this,  which  waiteth  not  for  the  call 
of  man.  .  .  .  Every  one  has  some  measure  of  that  light,  some  faint 
glimmering  ray,  which  sooner  or  later,  more  or  less,  enlightens 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world.  And  every  one,  unless  he  be 
one  of  the  small  number  whose  conscience  is  seared  as  with  a  hot 
iron,  feels  more  or  less  uneasy  when  he  acts  contrary  to  the  light  of 
his  own  conscience.  So  that  no  man  sins  because  he  has  not  grace, 
but  because  he  does  not  use  the  grace  which  he  hath." '  Elsewhere 
Mr.  Wesley  declares  that  through  the  atonement  every  soul  receives 
a  capacity  for  spiritual  life,  and  an  actual  spark  or  seed  thereof.'' 

On  this  question  Mr.  Fletcher  is  thoroughly  at  one  with  Mr. 
Wesley.  He  says  :  "  We  readily  grant  that  Adam,  and 
we  in  him,  lost  all  by  the  fall  ;  but  Christ,  '  the  Lamb 
slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  Christ,  the  repairer  of  the 
breach,'  mightier  to  save  than  Adam  to  destroy,  solemnly  gave  him- 
self to  Adam,  and  to  us  in  him,  by  the  free  everlasting  Gospel  which 
he  preached  in  paradise.  And  when  he  preached  it  he  undoubtedly 
gave  Adam,  and  us  in  him,  a  capacity  to  receive  it,  that  is,  a  power 
to  believe  and  repent.  If  he  had  not,  he  might  as  well  have 
preached  to  stocks  and  stones,  to  beasts  and  devils.  It  is  offering 
an  insult  to  '  the  only  wise  God '  to  suppose  that  he  gave  mankind 
the  light,  without  giving  them  eyes  to  behold  it ;  or  which  is  the 
same,  to  suppose  that  he  gave  them  the  Gospel  without  giving  them 
power  to  believe  it."  "  Out  of  Christ's  fullness  all  have  received 
grace."  "  We  maintain,  that  although  '  without  Christ  we  can  do 
nothing,'  yet  so  long  as  the  '  day  of  salvation  '  lasts,  all  men,  the 
chief  of  sinners  not  excepted,  can,  through  his  free  preventing  grace, 
'  cease  to  do  evil  and  learn  to  do  well,'  and  use  those  means  which 
will  infallibly  end  in  the  repentance  and  faith  peculiar  to  the  dis- 
pensation which  they  are  under,  whether  it  be  that  of  the  heathens, 
Jews,  or  Christians."  ^ 

The  position  of  Mr.  Watson  is  the  same:  ''But  virtues  grounded 
on  principle,  though  an  imperfect  one,  and  therefore 
neither  negative  nor  simulated,  may  also  be  found 
among  the  unregenerate,  and  have  existed,  doubtless,  in  all  ages. 
These,  however,  are  not  from  man,  but  from  God,  whose  Holy  Spirit 
has  been  vouchsafed  to  '  the  loorld  '  through  the  atonement.  This 
great  truth  has  often  been  lost  sight  of  in  this  controversy.  Some 
Calvinists  seem  to  acknowledge  it  substantially,  under  the  name  of 
'  common  grace  ;'  others  choose  rather  to  refer   all  appearances  of 

'  Sermons,  vol.  ii,  pp.  237,  238,  "^  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  196. 

3  Works,  vol.  i,  pp.  141,  142,  145. 

IS 


246  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

virtue  to  nature,  and  thus,  by  attempting  to  avoid  the  doctrine  of 

the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  all  mankind,  attribute  to  nature  what  is 

inconsistent  with  their  opinion  of  its  entire  corruption. 

VIRTUES     OF  .  ^ 

THE  uNREGEN-  But  thcrc  Is,  doubtlcss,  to  be  sometimes  found  in  men 
ERATE.  ^^^   yg^  regenerate   in   the   Scripture  sense,  not  even 

decided  in  their  choice,  something  of  moral  excellence,  which  can- 
not be  referred  to  any  of  the  causes  above  adduced  ;  and  of  a  much 
higher  character  than  is  to  be  attributed  to  a  nature  which,  when  left 
to  itself,  is  wholly  destitute  of  spiritual  life.  Compunction  for  sin, 
strong  desires  to  be  freed  from  its  tyranny,  such  a  fear  of  God  as  pre- 
served them  from  many  evils,  charity,  kindness,  good  neighborhood, 
general  respect  for  goodness  and  good  men,  a  lofty  sense  of  honor 
and  Justice,  and,  indeed,  as  the  very  command  issued  to  them  to 
repent  and  believe  the  Gospel  in  order  to  their  salvation  implies,  a 
PROOFS  OF  power  of  consideration,  prayer,  and  turning  to  God,  so 
HELPING  as  to  commence  that  course  which,  persevered  in,  would 

GRACE.  |g^^  ^^  ^^  forgiveness  and  regeneration.     To  say  that  all 

these  are  to  be  attributed  to  mere  nature  is  to  surrender  the  argu- 
ment to  the  Semi -Pelagian,  who  contends  that  these  are  proofs 
that  man  is  not  wholly  degenerate.  They  are  to  be  attributed  to 
the  controlling  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  to  his  incipient  work- 
ings in  the  hearts  of  men  ;  to  the  warfare  which  he  there  maintains, 
and  which  has  sometimes  a  partial  victory,  before  the  final  triumph 
comes,  or  when,  through  the  fault  of  man,  through  '  resisting,' 
'grieving,'  *  vexing,'  'quenching'  that  Holy  Spirit,  that  final  tri- 
umph may  never  come.  It  is  thus  that  one  part  of  Scripture  is 
reconciled  to  another,  and  both  to  fact ;  the  declaration  of  man's 
total  corruption,  with  the  presumption  of  his  power  to  return  to 
God,  to  repent,  to  break  off  his  sins,  which  all  the  commands  and 
invitations  to  him  from  the  Gospel  imply. "  ' 

3.  Capacity  for  Probation. — While  the  doctrine  of  a  universal 
helping  grace  of  theatonementfully  adjusts  the  moral  and  religious 
facts  of  human  history  to  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity,  and  thus 
saves  the  doctrine  from  an  inevitable  replacement  by  a  Semi-Pela- 
gianism,  it  also  provides  for  the  probationary  state  of  the  race. 
Man  is  fallen  and  corrupt  in  his  nature,  and  therein  morally  help- 
less ;  but  man  is  also  redeemed  and  the  recipient  of  a  helping  grace 
in  Christ  whereby  he  is  invested  with  capabilities  for  a  moral  proba- 
tion.    He  has  the  power  of  meeting  the  terms  of  an  actual  salva- 

'  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  pp.  85,  86.  We  add  a  few  references  : 
Clarke  :  Commentary,  Jolin  i,  9  ;  Pope  :  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  78- 
82 ;  Raymond  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  316-319 ;  Rosser ;  Initial 
Life  ;  Mercein  :  Natural  Goodness. 


BENEFITS  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  247 

tiou.  All  men  have  this  power.  It  is  none  the  less  real  or  suffi- 
cient because  of  its  gracious  source.  Salvation  is  thus  the  privilege 
of  every  man,  whatever  his  religious  dispensation. 

We  hold  fully  the  helplessness  of  man  for  any  religious  duty  sim- 
ply on  the  footing  of  nature.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  natural 
our  article  of  religion  on  this  question.'  But,  with  this  helplessness. 
doctrine  of  native  powerlessness  for  any  spiritual  duty,  we  hold 
the  doctrine  of  a  universal  helping  grace.  This  we  have  pointed 
out,  and  also  verified  by  our  best  authorities.  The  necessary  grace 
for  the  present  probation  is  an  immediate  benefit  of  the  atonement, 
and  the  possession  or  the  privilege  of  every  man.  This  is  the  Ar- 
minian  position. 

The  subjects  of  a  probationary  economy  must  have  the  power 
necessary  to  the  fulfillment  of  its  requirements.     There 

•^  .  .  mi  •  REQUISITE 

can  be  no  probation  without  such  power.  The  possi-  power  of 
bility  is  excluded  by  the  very  nature  of  the  economy.  probation. 
Probation  is  a  testing  economy  in  Avhich  certain  blessings  are  con- 
ditioned on  specified  duties.  "Where  there  is  no  power  to  fulfill 
such  duties  there  can  be  no  probation.  It  follows  that,  if  our  pres- 
ent life  is  a  probation  in  which  salvation  is  attainable  on  specified 
terms,  we  must  possess  or  have  in  reach  the  power  necessary  to  a 
compliance  with  such  terms.  Therefore,  if  we  hold  the  doctrine  of 
native  depravity,  we  must  either  admit  a  universal  helping  grace  of 
the  atonement  or  deny  that  the  present  life  is  probationary  with 
respect  to  our  salvation.  Such  denial  must  imply  two  things :  a 
limited  atonement,  with  a  sovereignty  of  grace  in  the  salvation  of 
an  elect  part,  which  for  them  precludes  a  probation  ;  and  a  repro- 
bation of  the  rest  which  denies  them  all  probational  opportunity  for 
salvation.  Arminianism  readily  accepts  the  issue  at  this  point ;  but 
the  present  section  is  not  the  place  for  the  treatment  of  the  ques- 
tions involved. 

4.  Infant  Salvation. — The  actual  salvation  of  all  who  die  in 
infancy  is  an  immediate  benefit  of  the  atonement  in  Christ.  The 
fact  of  such  an  infant  salvation  is  no  longer  a  question  in  any  truly 
evangelical  Church.  There  may  be  instances  of  individual  dissent, 
but  the  predominant  faith  of  such  Churches  holds  firmly  the  actual 
salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy.  There  is  no  need  to  make  an 
issue  where  there  is  nothing  in  dispute.  Happily,  on  this  question 
there  is  no  longer  any  dispute  among  evangelical  Churches. 

It  is  true  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  explicit  on  what  is  thus 
accepted  in  a  common  evangelical  faith.     They  neither  affirm  the 
fact  of  such  a  salvation  nor  explain  its  nature.     Yet  when  we  view 
'  Article  viii.   Of  Free  Will. 


248  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  question  of  fact  in  the  light  of  the  divine  love,  the  universal 
THE  SENSE  OF  g^ace  of  thc  atonement,  and  the  clear  intimations  of 
SCRIPTURE.  Scripture,  we  are  not  left  with  any  reason  to  doubt  the 
actual  salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy.  There  is  profound  mean- 
ing for  this  truth  in  the  words  of  our  Lord:  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you. 
Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.^' ^  There  is  like  meaning  in  his 
other  words  :  "  SufEer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to 
come  unto  me;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. "°  When  St. 
supERABouND-  P^ul  scts  lu  comparisou  or  contrast  the  consequences  of 
i.\G  GRACE.  the  relations  of  the  race  respectively  to  Adam  and 
Christ,  and  proclaims  the  superabounding  grace  of  the  atonement  in 
Christ,  his  words  must  mean  the  actual  salvation  of  all  who  die  in 
infancy.^  If  it  be  not  so,  then  tliere  is  an  infinite  depth  of  evil 
consequent  to  the  sin  of  Adam  which  is  never  reached  by  the 
redeeming  grace  of  Christ,  and  its  superabounding  fullness,  which 
forms  the  climax  of  this  great  text,  can  no  longer  be  true. 

While  infants  are  neither  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  nor  guilty  on 
account  of  an  inherited  nature,  yet  are  they  born  in  a 

NATURE  OF  IN-  '    ''  •' 

FANT  SALTA-  statc  of  depravity,  which  is  in  itself  a  moral  ruin  and  a 
'^^^^'  disqualification  for  future  blessedness.     In  these  facts 

lies  the  necessity  for  their  spiritual  regeneration.  This  regenera- 
tion is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  it  is  a  work  provided  for 
by  the  atonement  in  Christ,  as  are  all  the  offices  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  economy  of  salvation.  Thus  it  pleases  God  that  dying  infants 
shall  be  saved  through  the  redemptive  mediation  of  Christ ;  and 
thus  shall  the  song  of  salvation  through  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  be 
forever  theirs  in  all  the  fullness  of  its  gladness  and  love.  Here  is  an 
immediate  benefit  of  the  atonement  through  which  very  many  of 
the  race  shall  come  to  the  blessedness  of  heaven.^ 

11.  Conditional  Benefits. 

1.  Meaning  of  Conditional  Benefits. — That  is  a  conditional  ben- 
efit which  is  attainable  only  on  some  specified  or  appropriate  per- 
sonal action.     The  meaning  will  be  the  clearer  if  we  observe  the 
distinction  between  immediate  and  conditional  benefits.     For  the 
possession  of  the  former  no  personal  action  is  required, 

ILLUSTRATION, 

while  for  the  attainment  of  the  latter  such  action  is 
required.  We  are  born  with  mental  faculties,  and  may  have  provi- 
dentially the  best  educational  opportunities;  but  the  attainment  of 

•  Matt,  xviii,  3.  ''  Matt,  xix,  14.  3  Rom.  v,  12-21. 

■*  Hibbard  :  The  Religion  of  Childhood  ;  Gregg  :  Infant  Church  Membership  ; 
Mercein  :  Childhood  and  the  Church ;    Cook  :  Christianity  and  Childhood, 


BENEFITS  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  249 

scliolarship  is  possible  only  through  a  proper  use  of  our  faculties  and 
opportunities.  So  there  are  benefits  of  the  atonement  which  come 
to  us  without  any  action  on  our  part ;  but  there  are  other  great 
benefits,  such  as  constitute  an  actual  salvation,  which  are  attainable 
only  on  an  observance  of  the  divinely  specified  terms. 

i.  The  Conditionality  of  Salvation. — Our  position  is  this  :  The 
actual  salvation  of  the  soul  is  not  an  immediate  benefit  of  the  atone- 
ment,  nor  through  an  irresistible  operation  of  divine  grace,  but  is 
attainable  only  on  a  compliance  with  its  ajipropriate  terms.  We 
possess  or  may  possess  the  requisite  gracious  ability  for  such  com- 
pliance, with  power  to  the  contrary.  Otherwise,  the  present  life 
could  not  be  probationary  with  respect  to  our  salvation.  If  it  is 
thus  probationary,  then  is  our  actual  salvation  a  conditional  benefit 
of  the  atonement. 

Our  secular  life  is  clearly  probationary.  Mostly,  our  condition 
is  determined  by  the  character  of  our  personal  conduct.   ^  .„  ^^„„,  „ 

**  *■  OUR     SECULAR 

To  say  that  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  our  secular  life  proba- 
estate  would  be  to  contradict  the  common  experience  '^'^^''^'^"^" 
and  judgment  of  mankind.  That  some  are  born  to  wealth  and 
others  to  poverty,  some  to  opportunities  for  success  and  others  in 
adverse  conditions,  means  really  nothing  against  our  position.  These 
matters  are  merely  incidental  ;  and,  after  their  fullest  recognition, 
it  is  still  manifestly  true  that  our  secular  estate  is  determined  by 
our  personal  conduct.  We  see  the  verification  in  the  fact  that  many 
with  the  best  natural  opportunities  make  for  themselves  a  mean  and 
miserable  life,  while  many  without  such  opportunities,  and  even 
against  strongly  opposing  conditions,  make  for  themselves  a  pros- 
perous and  happy  life.' 

It  hardly  need  be  observed  that  the  view  here  presented  is  thor- 
oughly scriptural.  "  He  also  that  is  slothful  in  his  the  view  of 
work  is  brother  to  him  that  is  a  great  waster."*  As  scripture. 
such  wasting  surely  brings  poverty  and  misery,  so  does  a  slothful  or 
idle  life  ;  ''and  an  idle  soul  shall  suffer  hunger."'  The  doctrine 
of  St.  Paul  is  the  same  :  ''  He  which  soweth  sparingly  shall  reap 
also  sparingly ;  and  he  which  soweth  bountifully  shall  reap  also 
bountifully."  *  The  illustration  is  here  taken  from  the  field  of  agri- 
culture, but  the  principle  is  the  same  in  every  sphere  of  human 
labor. 

As  our  secular  life  is  thus  probationary,  so  may  our  moral  and  re- 
ligious life  be  probationary  with  respect  to  our  future  destiny.  This 
is  a  proposition  which  Bishop  Butler  has  maintained  with  great 

'  Butler  :  Analogy,  part  i,  chap.  ii.  '  Prov.  xviii,  9. 

3  Prov.  xix,  15.     See  Prov.  xx,  4  ;  xxiv,  30-34.  *  3  Cor.  ix,  6. 

18 


250  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

force  of  logic'     On  this  question  nothing  remains  to  be  added  to 
his  argument.     We,  however,  are  more  directly  con- 

OUR  RELIGIOUS  °     .  '  .  ... 

LIFE  PROBA-  cerned  with  the  question  of  the  conditionality  of  the  sal- 
TioNART.  vation  in  Christ ;  a  salvation  which  includes  our  future 

blessedness.  This  is  a  question  which  must  be  decided  in  the  light 
IN  THE  LIGHT  of  tlic  Scripturcs.  On  the  face  of  the  Scriptures  noth- 
OF  SCRIPTURE,  ing  seems  plainer  than  this  conditionality.  It  will 
suffice  that  the  question  be  tested  by  a  few  pertinent  texts.  We 
shall  adduce  such  as  couple  our  forgiveness  and  salvation  with  cer- 
tain divinely  specified  acts  or  forms  of  action  required  of  us.  Texts 
which  exclude  from  the  salvation  all  such  as  refuse  or  omit  the  re- 
quired action  are  equally  in  point. 

The  great  commission  in  Avhich  our  Lord  charged  his  disciples  to 
SCRIPTURE  preach  the  Gospel  to  all  men  seems  in  itself  entirely  suf- 
TESTiMONY.  ficlcnt  for  the  proof  of  our  position.^  Very  naturally, 
in  this  commission  the  condition  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  the 
salvation  which  the  Gospel  should  proclaim  is  definitely  named  : 
''He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  The  faith  is 
conditionally  necessary  to  the  salvation.  This  truth  is  emphasized 
by  the  assertion  of  the  consequences  of  unbelief :  "  But  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  Such,  indeed,  is  the  teaching  of 
Christ  and  his  disciples  from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  until  the 
conclusion  of  theirs.  Thus  Christ  went  forth  and  preached  the  Gos- 
pel of  the  kingdom  of  God  :  "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  at  hand  :  repent  ye,  and  believe  the  Gospel."'  So, 
when  the  disciples  were  first  sent  forth  with  the  message  of  the 
Gospel,  "they  went  out,  and  preached  that  men  should  repent."' 
Such  was  the  doctrine  of  St.  Peter  in  his  memorable  sermon  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost :  "  Eepent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." '  Thus  the  attainment  of  the 
salvation  in  Christ  is  continuously  coupled  with  our  observance 
of  divinely  specified  terms. 

Let  us  turn  again  to  the  decisive  words  of  our  Lord:  ''God  so 
FURTHER  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son, 

TESTIMONY.  that  whosocvcr  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life."^  Here  faith  in  Christ  is  conditionally  nec- 
essary to  the  attainment  of  the  salvation  which  he  provided.  This 
same  truth  is  directly  emphasized  by  other  words  of  our  Lord. 
*'  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned:  but  he  that  believeth 
not  is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name 

^Analogy,  part  i,  chaps,  iii-v.  'Mark  xvi,  15,  16.  'Mark  i,  15. 

*Mark  vi,  13.         ^^cts  ii,  38.     See  also  iii,  19;  xxvi,  20.  «  John  iii,  16. 


BENEFITS  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  251 

of  the  ouly  begotten  Son  of  God."'  There  is  still  further  empha- 
eis  :  "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life:  and  he 
that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life  ;  but  the  wrath  of 
God  abideth  on  him."*  We  may  here  add  the  testimony  of  St. 
Paul,  as  given  in  his  doctrine  of  justification  or  the  re-  words  ok 
mission  of  sin.  In  his  doctrine  justification  is  intrinsic  P'^*^'- 
to  the  salvation  in  Christ,  but  is  attainable  only  on  the  condition 
of  faith.  That  such  is  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul  is  so  well  known 
that  a  mere  reference  to  a  single  passage  will  here  suffice.  ■' 

We  may  group  a  few  other  testimonies.  "  And  being  made  jjer- 
fect,  he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  unto  all  ^  group  op 
them  that  obey  him."^  No  proper  interpretation  of  tkxts. 
these  words  can  omit  the  truth  of  a  conditional  relation  of  obe- 
dience to  Christ  to  the  final  salvation  of  which  he  is  the  author. 
We  give  by  reference  another  passage  in  which  the  same  truth  is 
clearly  set  forth,  that  our  present  conduct,  especially  in  its  relation 
to  Christ,  is  conditionally  determinative  of  our  future  destiny.* 
Thus  as  we  obey  or  obey  not  the  Gospel  of  bur  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
so  shall  our  destiny  be  one  of  blessedness  or  one  of  misery.  The 
decisions  of  the  final  judgment  come  to  the  same  point.  These  de- 
cisions turn  upon  the  character  of  our  conduct  in  the  present  life.* 

If  it  be  true  that  our  personal  compliance  with  certain  specified 
terms  is  required  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  salvation,  that  we 
have  a  gracious  ability  for  such  compliance,  and  also  power  to  the 
contrary,  these  facts  are  in  the  closest  accordance  with  consistency 
the  texts  which  we  have  presented.  So  much  must  be  of  texts 
conceded,  even  by  such  as  hold  the  doctrine  of  moral  ^'^"  fact.s. 
necessity  and  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  grace  in  the  work  of  salva- 
tion. If  it  had  been  the  definite  purpose  of  our  Lord  and  his  apos- 
tles to  teach  the  doctrine  of  a  real  conditionality  of  salvation  they 
could  not  have  expressed  their  meaning  more  certainly  than  in  such 
words  as  we  have  cited. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  words  are  entirely  inconsistent  with  the 
contrary  position.  If  no  free  personal  action  of  our  no  consist- 
own  has  any  conditional  relation  to  our  salvation  why  contrTry" 
should  such  action  be  imperatively  required,  just  as  position. 
though  it  had  such  relation  ?  If  we  are  utterly  powerless  for  any 
act  of  repentance  or  faith,  or  even  for  any  act  toward  repentance  or 
faith,  why  should  we  be  required  to  repent  and  believe,  just  as  though 

'  John  iii,  18.  '^  John  iii,  36.  'Rom.  iii,  19-26. 

'Heb.  V,  9.  ^2Thes8.  i,  3-10. 

« Matt.  XXV,  31-46  ;  John  v,  28,  29  ;  Rom.  ii,  0-16  ;    2  Cor.  v,   10  ;    Gal.  vi, 
7,  8;  Rev.  xxii,  12. 


252  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

we  possessed  the  necessary  power  ?  What  is  the  ground  of  the 
severe  condemnation  and  doom  of  all  who  refuse  or  neglect  the  re- 
quired repentance  and  faith  ?  If  the  first  fact  in  the  work  of  an 
actual  salvation  be  a  sovereign  act  of  God  in  the  regeneration  of  the 
soul,  from  which  repentance  and  faith  immediately  spring,  and 
which  are  else  impossible,  why  should  they  be  commanded  just  as 
though  they  were  possible,  and  were  actually  conditional  to  our 
salvation  ?  It  certainly  means  much  for  our  position  respecting 
the  conditionality  of  salvation — indeed,  is  conclusive  of  its  truth — 
that  it  is  in  the  completest  accordance  with  so  many  practical  texts 
which  directly  concern  this  question  ;  while  the  contrary  position 
is  in  their  open  contradiction. 

3.  TJie  Great  Facts  of  Salvation  Severally  Conditional. — We  here 
require  only  a  brief  statement  respecting  each  fact,  since  the  condi- 
tionality of  each  is  really  included  in  our  general  treatment  of  the 
question. 

Justification  is  declared  to  be  by  faith  in  a  manner  that  clearly 
TRUEOFjusTi-  Diakcs  thc  latter  conditional  to  the  former.  This  rela- 
KicATioN.  tion  can  be  denied  only  on  the  assumption  that  the  faith 
is  wrought  in  us  by  an  immediate  and  absolute  operation  of  God. 
But  this  is  contrary  to  both  the  nature  of  faith  and  the  meaning  of 
the  Scriptures  respecting  it.  The  faith  by  which  we  are  justified  is 
a  personal  act,  and  is  so  required  under  the  sanction  of  moral  obli- 
gation and  responsibility.  It  is  contradictory  to  all  true  ideas  of 
FAITH  A  PER-  sucli  au  act  of  faith  that  it  should  be  the  product  of  an 
soNAL  ACT.  absolute  divine  agency.  No  text  of  Scripture  supports 
such  a  view.  The  prayer,  ''  Lord,  I  believe;  help  thou  mine  unbe- 
lief," '  can  be  answered  without  any  such  a  divine  operation.  Un- 
belief is  often  helped  by  a  clear  presentation  of  the  grounds  of  faith. 
So  by  a  spiritual  illumination  or  inner  quickening  God  can  help  the 
soul  to  a  stronger  faith,  while  the  faith  itself  shall  still  be  a  free 
personal  act.  There  is  nothing  against  this  view  in  the  words  of 
FAITH  NO  AB-  ^^'  P^ul I  "  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith;  and 
SOLUTE  GIFT,  that  uot  of  yoursclvcs:  it  is  the  gift  of  God." ''  The  pre- 
ponderance of  exegetical  authority  is  against  the  view  that  faith 
itself  is  the  gift  of  God  ;  but  even  if  such  a  meaning  were  conceded, 
still  the  interpretation  must  accord  with  the  nature  of  faith  as  a  free 
personal  act.  We  have  just  seen  that,  consistently  with  this  fact, 
God  may  still  give  us  a  higher  capacity  for  faith  ;  but  it  is  only  as 
faith  is  a  free  personal  act  that  we  can  be  saved  by  faith.  Take 
away  this  character  of  faith,  and  it  becomes  merely  a  part  of  a  sal- 
vation which  is  wrought  by  an  absolute  divine  operation,  and  the 
'  Mark  ix,  24.  2  gph.  ii,  8. 


BENEFITS  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  253 

whole  idea  of  salvation  by  faith  disappears.     Yet  this  is  the  central 
idea  of  the  many  texts  which  relate  directly  to  this  subject.' 

Less  is  said  in  the  Scriptures  respecting  the  conditionality  of 
regeneration,  yet  enough  is  said  to  leave  us  in  no  rea-  truk  ok  rk- 
sonable  doubt  of  the  fact.  Regeneration  is  thoroughly  generation. 
distinct  from  Justification  in  its  nature,  but  is  not  distinct  in  its 
condition.  "We  are  regenerated  on  the  same  act  of  faith  on  which 
we  are  justified.  There  are  texts  in  which  the  former  must  be 
included  with  the  latter,  while  only  the  latter  is  named.  "  There- 
fore being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.'*  '^  There  could  be  no  such  peace  were  not  regen- 
eration an  accompanying  blessing  of  justification.  Fur-  united  with 
ther,  there  is  for  us  no  regeneration  without  justifica-  justification. 
tion;  therefore  the  former  must  be  conditional  as  well  as  the  latter. 
The  words  of  St.  John  are  in  point:  "  But  as  many  as  received  him, 
to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that 
believe  on  his  name  :  which  were  born  ...  of  God.'' '  Here  the 
faith  in  Christ  is  clearly  conditional  to  the  regeneration  whereby  we 
become  the  sons  of  God.  "  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  ^  But  if  this  gracious  affiliation  is  so  condi- 
tioned on  faith,  the  regeneration  whereby  it  is  constituted  must  be 
conditioned  in  like  manner. 

Final  perseverance  and  future  blessedness,  as  related  to  the  present 
question,  are  inseparably  connected.     The  former,  how- 

,  ,  FINAL     BLESS* 

ever,  will  be  considered  elsewhere.  It  seems  clearly  the  edness  condi- 
sense  of  Scripture  that  future  blessedness  is  a  condi-  '^'°'^'*^'" 
tional  attainment.  He  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved.* 
Unto  them  who  by  patient  continuance  in  well-doing  seek  for  glory 
and  honor  and  immortality,  shall  be  rendered  eternal  life."  Unto 
him  who  is  faithful  unto  death  will  Christ  give  a  crown  of  life.^ 
Such  is  the  pervasive  sense  of  Scripture  on  this  question.  But 
there  can  be  no  such  enduring,  nor  continuance  in  well-doing,  nor 
faithfulness  unto  death,  without  free  personal  action.  Therefore 
such  action  must  be  conditional  to  the  attainment  of  future  bless- 
edness, 

'  Mark  xvi,  15,  16  ;  John  iii,  16,  18,  36  ;  Acts  xiii,  38,  39  ;  xvi,  31:  Eom. 
iii,  25,  26. 

»  Rom.  V,  1.  »  John  i,  12, 13.  •*  Gal.  iii,  26. 

^  Matt.  X,  22.  «  Rom.  ii,  6,  7.  ■»  Rev.  ii,  10. 


254  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  II. 

DOCTBINAL    ISSUES. 

The  question  of  the  conditionality  of  salvation  involves  the  lead- 
ing doctrinal  issues  between  Arminianism  and  Calvin- 

THE  ISSUES. 

ism.  The  conditionality  is  central  to  the  former,  and 
carries  with  it  the  universality  of  the  atonement,  moral  freedom,  the 
resistibility  of  grace,  and  the  possibility  of  final  apostasy.  The 
counter  doctrines  of  the  latter  are  :  predestination,  limited  atone- 
ment, moral  necessity,  irresistibility  of  saving  grace,  and  the  abso- 
lute final  perseverance  of  believers. 

These  are  the  notable  '^Five  Points,"  long  in  issue  between  the 
THE  NOTABLE  ^wo  systcms.  On  the  Calvinistic  side,  their  more  exact 
FIVE  POINTS,  formulation  was  the  work  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  year 
1619.^  In  substance  they  are  common  to  Calvinistic  creeds,  and 
must  be,  since  they  are  intrinsic  to  tlie  system.  They  are  also  com- 
mon to  works  of  Calvinistic  authorship  on  systematic  theology. 
The  opposing  tenets  of  Arminianism  were  formulated  by  the 
Remonstrants,  a  body  of  leading  Arminian  divines,  year  1610.*  In 
these  articles  there  is  some  lack  of  decision  on  the  question  of  free 
agency,  and  notable  reservation  respecting  final  perseverance.  In- 
deed, Arminius  himself  never  reached  a  dogmatic  position  on  this 
question.  There  is,  however,  no  such  indecision  or  reservation  in  the 
Wesleyan  Arminianism.  Nor  should  there  be  any,  since  free  agency 
and  the  possibility  of  final  apostasy  are  intrinsic  to  the  system. 
The  issues  respecting  the  extent  of  the  atonement  and  free  agency 

^^^  of  chief  importance.  If  on  these  two  the  truth  is 
CHIEF  iMPOR-    with  Arminianism,  so  must  it  be  on  all  the  others.    The 

former  of  the  two  was  sufficiently  discussed  in  our 
treatment  of  the  atonement.  The  latter  will  receive  a  like  treatment 
in  the  proper  place.  With  such  attention  to  these  leading  issues  a 
brief  treatment  of  the  others  will  suffice. 

I.  DocTEiNE  OF  Predestination. 
1.  Divine  Decrees. — Predestination  is  a  specific  part  of  the  broader 
doctrine  of  decrees.     While  the  former  relates  particu- 

Decrees 

larly  to  the  destiny  of  angels  and  men,  the  latter  em- 
braces all  events  in  the  history  of  the  universe.     The  doctrine  is 
'  Schaff:  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  iii,  pp.  581-595.      •'  Ibid.,  pp.  545-549. 


DOCTRINAL  ISSUES.  255 

thus  formulated  :  "  God  from  all  eternity  did  by  the  most  wise  and 
holy  counsel  of  his  own  will  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  what- 
soever comes  to  pass.'' ' 

In  the  interpretation  of  the  decrees  various  attributes  are  defi- 
nitelv  affirmed  of  them.    They  are  eternal  and  immuta- 

•^  •'  ETERNAL. 

ble.     Their  immutability  means   that  events  in  tmie 
must  answer  to  them  exactly  and  absolutely.     They  are  uncondi- 
tional and  absolute.     One  thing  may  be  a  means  to  an-        absolute 
other,  and  so  be  necessarily  prior  in  the  process  of  divine 
effectuation,  but  must  be  without  any  contingency.      The   event 
decreed  must  come  to  pass.     ''  The  decrees  of  God  are  certainly 
efficacious."     Dr.   Hodge  maintains  this  proposition, 
yet  in  a  manner  which  seeks  to  avoid  its  inevitable  im- 
plications.    "  All  events  embraced  in  the  purpose  of  God  are  equally 
certain,  whether  he  has  determined  to  bring  them  to  pass  by  his 
own  power  or  simply  to  permit  their  occurrence  through  the  agency 
of  his  creatures. "     An  efficacious  decree  must  be  causal  to  the  event 
decreed.     A  permissive  decree  cannot  be  thus  efficacious.       permissive 
The  two  ideas  of  causation  and  permission  cannot  stand       decrees. 
together  respecting  the  same  event.     The  mere  permission  of  events 
through  human  agency   lets  in  the  contingency  of  free  agency, 
which  yet  can  have  no  place  in  the  system.     If  the  decrees  of  God 
are  efficacious  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  term,  they  must  be  causa! 
to  the  things  or  events  decreed,  and  to  the  sins  of  men  as  really  as 
to  anything  else.     They  embrace  all  events,  every  thing  that  comes 
to  pass  in  the  entire  history  of  the  universe.     Here  there  is  no  dis- 
tinction between  the  physical  and  moral  realms ;  between  divine 
acts  and  human  acts  ;  between  righteous  acts  and  sinful  acts." 

The  alleged  proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees  are  certainly  incon- 
clusive. There  is  an  analogical  argument,  that,  as  there  proofs  of 
is  a  fixed  order  of  things  in  the  physical  realm,  so  nECREEs. 
should  there  be  a  fixed  order  in  the  moral  realm.  "  There  is  the 
same  God  working  in  natural  and  moral  government."  Doubtless: 
but  does  he  work  in  the  same  mode  in  the  two  ?  If  he  does,  the 
moral  must  be  subject  to  an  absolute  necessitation.  The  repudia- 
tion of  this  consequence  is  the  abandonment  of  the  analogical  argu- 
ment. There  is  a  rational  argument,  that  it  is  best  that  all  events 
should  be  embraced  in  the  divine  plan.  But  the  divine  omniscience 
can  embrace  all  things,  even  the  free  volitions  of  men.     If  this  be 

'  Westminster  Confession,  chap.  iii. 

'^  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  i,  pp.  540-545  ;  Shedd:  Dogmatic  Theol' 
ogy,  vol.  i,  pp.  399-405  ;  Henry  B.  Smith  :  System  of  ChHstian  Theology,  pp. 
117-119. 


-256  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

impossible,  then  the  only  alternative  is  their  absolute  necessitation. 
This  consequence  refutes  the  argument. 

Arguments  are  drawn  from  the  divine  attributes.  Omniscience 
requires  the  certainty  of  all  futurities.  Certainty  can 
oMNisciEN  .  ^Yise  only  from  an  interior  necessity  or  from  a  divine 
decree.  Therefore,  as  human  volitions  have  no  interior  necessi- 
tation, they  must  be  made  certain  by  such  a  decree.  But  how  can 
the  decree  give  the  necessary  certainty  ?  In  itself  it  can  have  no 
influence  upon  any  future  event.  The  certainty  can  be  attained 
only  by  an  absolute  purpose  of  God  to  give  effect  to  the  decree. 
But  there  could  be  no  freedom  in  any  human  volition  so  caused. 
Either  this  argument  from  the  divine  omniscience  is  groundless  or 
absolute  necessity  is  the  consequence.  An  argument  is  drawn  from 
the  immutability  of   God.     It    must  assume  that  the 

IMMUTABILITY.  .  V"  pi  •       •  •    i        i.         -il,    1,  • 

contingency  ot  human  freedom  is  inconsistent  with  his 
immutability.  If  there  be  truth  in  this  assumption  there  is  no 
place  for  a  moral  system,  which  is  possible  only  with  freedom. 
But  there  is  no  such  inconsistency  ;  and  the  immutability  of  God, 
which  lies  in  his  own  absolute  perfections,  is  just  as  complete  with 
a  moral  government  over  free  subjects  as  it  could  be  with  one  over 
subjects  under  moral  necessity.     Another  argument  is  drawn  from 

the  holiness  of  God.     As  a  holy  being,  he  must  purpose 

HOLINESS* 

the  triumph  of  holiness.  But  with  the  contingency  of 
human  freedom  the  future  could  not  be  foreknown,  and  the  divine 
purpose  miglit  be  thwarted;  therefore  God  must  subject  all  voli- 
tions to  his  decree.  Now  it  is  certain  that  he  does  foreknow  all  evil 
volitions  just  as  he  foreknows  the  good  ;  hence,  if  his  foreknowledge 
is  conditioned  on  his  decree,  he  must  decree  the  evil  just  as  he  does 
the  good.  But,  as  we  said  before,  such  a  decree  is  powerless  in 
itself,  and  can  be  made  efficacious  only  by  the  divine  agency.  A 
doctrine  which  means,  not  only  that  God  decrees  evil  volitions,  but 
causally  determines  them,  cannot  be  true. 

The  divine  decrees  are  held  to  be  of  two  kinds :  one  kind  effica- 
cious ;  the  other,  permissive.     The  former  are  rendered 

DECREES  EFFI-  ~.  .  ,  '    ^^  .     .  •  i  •        i 

cAcious  AND  efficacious  by  the  divme  agency  m  physical  nature,  and 
PERMISSIVE.  |j^  ^jjg  gpjiere  of  the  ethically  good,  particularly  in  the 
salvation  of  the  elect.  The  latter  have  relation  only  to  sin.  All 
sin  is  permissively  decreed  ;  all  else  is  efficaciously  decreed.  Much 
is  made  of  this  distinction  in  the  Calvinistic  treatment  of  the  doc- 
trine. It  is  assumed  that  our  free  agency  is  thus  secured,  and  that 
God  is  thoroughly  cleared  of  the  authorship  of  sin.  These  assump- 
tions constitute  a  part  of  the  formulated  doctrine  of  God's  eternal 
decree  :  "  Yet  so  as  thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin  ;  nor 


DOCTRINAL  ISSUES.  257 

is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or 
contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  established."' 
Calvinists  must  have  full  credit  for  these  positions,  but  the  positions 
themselves  are  fairly  open  to  criticism. 

If  the  permissive  decree,  as  distinguished  from  the  efficacious, 
provides  for  a  responsible  freedom  in  sinning,  and  is  nee-  ^g  related  to 
essary  to  such  freedom,  it  follows  that  the  efficacious  freedom. 
decree  in  respect  to  the  salvation  of  the  elect  must  preclude  their 
free  agency.  Indeed,  it  must  preclude  all  such  agency  within 
the  sphere  of  the  ethically  good.  Yet  the  formulated  doctrine 
broadly  asserts  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes,  with- 
out any  distinction  between  the  evil  and  the  good.  Further, 
in  the  Calvinistic  exposition  of  the  doctrine,  free  agency  in  the 
good  is  as  fully  maintained  as  in  the  evil.  Now,  if  free  agency 
in  the  good  is  consistent  with  the  efficacious  decrees,  free  agency 
in  evil  must  be  consistent  with  the  same  kind  of  decrees.  This 
means  that  God  might  decree  sin  and  efficaciously  determine 
its  commission,  while  yet  it  should  be  committed  in  responsible 
freedom,  and  himself  be  clear  of  its  authorship.  Here  are  serious 
perplexities  for  the  doctrine. 

Other  points  are  yet  more  perplexing.  The  decrees  are  held  to 
be  the  ground  of  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  the  neces-  q^q^jju  ^y 
sary  and  only  ground  of  his  certainty  of  any  futurity,  foreknowl- 
For  instance,  he  could  not  have  foreknown  the  sin  and 
fall  of  Adam,  nor  the  sin  of  Judas  in  the  betrayal  of  our  Lord,  nor 
the  manner  of  his  crucifixion,  with  all  the  sin  therein,  if  he  had 
not  decreed  it. 

My  first  point  of  criticism  is,  that  the  doctrine  is  inconsistent 
Avith  the  divine  omniscience.  The  knowledge  of  God  contrary  to 
is  conditioned  on  his  decree.  A  conditioned  knowl-  omniscience, 
edge  is  an  acquired  knowledge ;  and  an  acquired  knowledge  never  can 
possess  the  j)lenitude  of  omniscience.  It  may  be  said  that  both  the 
decree  and  the  knowledge  are  eternal,  and  therefore  the  latter  can- 
not be  acquired.  It  is  true  that  we  cannot  go  back  of  eternity  in  any 
order  of  time;  but  there  is  a  logical  priority  among  things  declared 
to  be  eternal.  In  the  order  of  nature  the  decree  must  be  prior  to 
the  knowledge  which  it  is  held  to  condition.  Moreover,  the  decree 
is  a  personal  act  of  God,  and  there  must  have  been  an  eternity  back 
of  it  wherein  he  could  know  nothing  of  any  futurity.  However,  the 
ground  of  the  present  criticism  was  sufficiently  considered  in  our 
treatment  of  omniscience. 

Further,  permissive  decrees  cannot  furnish  the  ground  assumed 
'  Westminster  Confession,  chap.  iii. 


258  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

to  be  necessary  to  the  divine  certainty  of  the  future.    A  permissive 
decree  is  simply  a  decree  not  to  prevent  this  or  that  sin. 

INSUFFICIENCY  fi.iT-  !■ 

OF  PERMISSIVE  It  rcspccts  Simply  the  divme  agency,  and  is  powerless 
DECREES.  ^^gj,  ^Yie  human,  which  is  thus  left  to  the  contingency 

of  freedom.  How  can  such  a  decree  furnish  the  necessary  ground 
of  the  divine  foreknowledge  ?  If  God  decreed  the  deep  repentance  of 
David  and  the  decree  included  its  divine  effectuation,  then  there 
was  the  requisite  ground  of  certainty  ;  but  could  a  decree  simply  to 
permit  the  heinous  sin  of  David  be  such  a  ground  ? 

Some  j)uzzling  questions  arise  just  here.  How  could  God  per- 
PERPLExixG  missively  decree  the  sin  of  David  while  as  yet,  accord - 
QUESTIONS.  ing  to  this  doctrine,  he  could  know  nothing  of  its  com- 
mission ?  and  how  could  he  efficaciously  decree  the  repentance  of 
David  Avhile  as  yet  he  could  know  nothing  of  the  sin  for  which  he 
should  repent?  The  first  question  is  equally  pertinent  respecting 
all  other  sins.  A  leading  argument  for  the  divine  decrees  is  that 
future  volitions,  if  left  to  the  contingency  of  free  agency,  are  pure 
nothings,  and  therefore  are  not  foreknowable,  not  even  to  God. 
Hence  it  is  that  they  must  be  decreed  in  order  to  be  foreknown. 
Such  are  the  declared  facts  respecting  all  sins.  Then,  again,  the 
question  is.  How  could  God  permissively  decree  all  those  sins,  when 
he  could  know  nothing  of  them  until  they  were  decreed  ? 

We  here  emphasize  a  point  previously  stated,  that  a  decree  made 
in  eternity  cannot  in  itself  be  determinative  of  any  event 

PERMISSIVE  •        ,•  /-w     1        JT  T     •  ,•  •  ■• 

DECREES  NO  1^  timc.  Ouly  the  divme  agency  as  operative  in  time 
GROUND  OF       Qan  make  it  efficacious  :  but  such  agency  has  no  place 

CERTAINTY.  .  .       .  '  ,  i      n  ,  , 

m  a  permissive  decree.  How,  then,  shall  such  a  de- 
cree make  certain  to  the  divine  mind  the  volitional  futurities  of 
free  agency?  "In  the  instance  of  sin,  the  certainty  of  the  self- 
determination  is  inexplicable,  because  we  cannot  say  in  this  case 
that  God  works  in  man  '  to  will  and  to  do.'  "  So  says  Dr.  Shedd. 
But  it  is  more  than  inexplicable  ;  it  is  impossible,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  decrees.  The  sinful  volition  or  deed  has  back  of  it 
simply  a  permissive  decree  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  utterly 
powerless  for  its  determination.  Nor  can  the  divine  agency  go 
forth  to  its  determination ;  for  this  would  make  God  the  author 
of  sin,  which  the  doctrine  repudiates.  Yet  it  is  only  by  the  pur- 
pose of  such  a  mode  of  effectuation  that  the  divine  decree  can  make 
certain  the  futurities  of  sin. 

An  argument  is  put  in  this  manner:  It  is  a  truth  of  the  Script- 
siNFUL  DEEDS  ^'^'^s  that  lu  uiauy  instances  the  sins  of  men  were  fore- 
FOREKNowN.  kuowu  to  God;  therefore  they  must  have  been  decreed. 
The  fact  of  such  foreknowledge  is  not  questioned.     Its  truth  is 


DOCTRINAL   ISSUES.  2.-,n 

manifest  iu  the  fulfillmeut  of  propliecies  of  sinful  dcedtj.  But  tlie 
inference  respecting  decrees  is  denied.  The  argument  assumes  their 
necessity  to  the  divine  prescience  ;  but  we  have  shown,  not  only 
that  this  assumption  is  groundless,  but  that  it  is  contradictory  to 
the  plenitude  of  the  divine  omniscience. 

The  argument  often  proceeds  with  special  reference  to  the  sins 
committed  against  Christ  iu  the  execution  of  the  divine  as  against 
plan  of  redemption.  There  was  such  a  plan;  and  there  christ. 
were  sinful  deeds  in  its  execution.  These  facts  are  clearly  script- 
ural. "  Him,  being  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and 
foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have 
crucified  and  slain."  "'  For  of  a  truth  against  thy  holy  child  Jesus, 
whom  thou  hast  anointed,  both  Herod,  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  people  of  Israel,  were  gathered  together,  for  to 
do  whatsoever  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  determined  before  to  be 
done.'**  These  are  the  favorite  texts.  It  is  plain  that  such  sinful 
deeds  were  to  enter  into  the  execution  of  the  divine  plan  of  redemp- 
tion. The  sin  of  Judas  in  the  betrayal  of  our  Lord  must  be  included. 
We  have  stated  the  case  in  its  greatest  strength.  The  interpreta- 
tion of  the  facts  is  now  the  question. 

My  first  point  is  this  :  While  it  was  necessary  that  Christ  should 
suffer  and  die  in  order  to  the  redemption  of  the  world, 

^  .  '  NOT    NECKS- 

the  precise  manner  in  which  he  did  suffer  and  die  was  not  sary  to  rk- 
60  necessary.  Who  shall  say  that  the  part  of  Judas  in  demptiox. 
its  precise  form,  and  the  parts  of  Herod,  and  Pilate,  and  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  the  people  of  Israel,  as  severally  acted,  were  essential  to 
an  atonement  for  sin  by  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  ?  If  so  necessary 
there  is  no  accounting  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  part  of  each  except 
by  a  divine  determination  thereto.  But  there  is  no  such  determi- 
nation in  a  permissive  decree  ;  and  this  is  the  only  kind  here  allowed. 
The  efficacious  decree  is  excluded  because  it  would  make  God  the 
author  of  sin. 

My  next  point  is,  that  the  facts  are  open  to  an  easy  explanation 
without  any  resort  to  a  determining  decree.  In  the  easily  ixter- 
absolute  prescience  of  God  he  foreknew  the  parts  cer-  pR^TKn. 
tain  men  Avould  freely  act  under  given  conditions,  and  in  his  infi- 
nite wisdom  he  was  pleased  to  appropriate  such  parts  in  the  execution 
of  the  plan  of  redemption.  Thus  it  was  that,  according  to  his  de- 
terminate counsel  and  foreknowledge,  God  delivered  his  Son  to  be 
betrayed  and  crucified  and  slain,  just  in  the  manner  that  he  was, 
by  the  free  acts  of  men.  This  interpretation  means  all  that  a  per- 
missive decree  of  God  can  mean  in  this  case.  And  predestinarians 
»  Acts  ii,  33  ;  iv,  27,  38. 


260  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

must  accept  this  interpretation  or  replace  their  laermissive  decree 
by  an  efficacious  decree.  But  this  they  cannot  do^,  for  by  their  own 
concession  it  would  make  God  the  author  of  sin.' 

2.  Predestination. — As  before  stated,  predestination  respects  the 
destinies  of  men  and  angels.  It  includes  both  election  and  reproba- 
tion: the  unconditional  election  of  a  part  to  final  blessedness,  and 
an  absolute  reprobation  of  the  rest  to  final  misery.  "  By  the  decree 
of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels 
are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to 
everlasting  death. "  ^  In  each  case  the  number  is  unchangeably  fixed, 
60  '^that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished." 

3.  Election. — Election,  in  its  human  application,  means  that  all 
who  are  predestinated  unto  final  blessedness  God  ''  hath  chosen  in 
Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,"  without  foresight  of  any  thing  in 
them  as  the  reason  of  their  election.  There  are  in  the  Scriptures 
many  instances  of  divine  election;  but  the  question  is,  whether  they 
support  this  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  an  absolute  election  to  final 
blessedness. 

There  are  instances  of  personal  election  to  special  privileges  and 
INSTANCES  OF  cli^ties  '.  of  Abraham  to  be  the  progenitor  of  Christ,  and 
ELECTION.  the  founder  of  a  nation  which  should  fulfill  important 
offices  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  purposes  of  God  ;  of  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  instead  of  Ishmael  and  Esau,  to  the  heritage  of  promises 
made  to  Abraham  ;  of  Cyrus  to  the  work  of  restoring  the  Jews  and 
rebuilding  the  temple  ;  of  the  apostles  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  planting  of  Christianity ;  but  in  neither  instance  did  the 
election  include  an  unconditional  predestination  to  final  blessedness. 
And  any  assumption  that  these  elections  were  wholly  irrespective 
of  any  fitness  in  the  persons  chosen  for  their  several  offices  is  purely 
gratuitous. 

The  Jews  were  elected  as  a  nation  to  special  religious  privileges 
ELECTION  OP  ^^^  blessings.  Thus  it  "was  that  they  came  into  the 
THE  JEWS.  possession  of  a  divine  revelation  and  divinely  instituted 
forms  of  worship,  together  with  many  other  blessings  and  privi- 
leges.^ But  final  blessedness  was  not  an  unconditional  benefit 
of  this  election.  If  it  had  been,  then,  according  to  the  Calvin- 
istic doctrine,  all  must  have  been  brought  into  a  gracious  state  in 
the  present  life.  That  many  of  them  were  not  so  brought  is  mani- 
fest in  the  Scriptures.  Further,  by  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  on 
account  of  their  unbelief,  their   election  was   transformed  into  a 

'  The  sending  of  Joseph  into  Egypt — Gen.  xlv,  4,  5 — is  easily  explained  in 
like  manner. 

'  Westminster  Confession,  chap.  iii.  'Eom.  ix,  4,  5. 


DOCTRINAL  ISSUES.  261 

reprobation.'  But  an  unconditional  election  to  final  blessedness 
could  not  be  so  transformed.  Hence  no  such  blessing  could  have 
been  included  among  the  benefits  to  which  the  Jews  were  originally 
elected. 

There  are  some  texts  which,  on  a  superficial  view,  seem  to  favor 
the  doctrine    of  predestination ;  but  a  deeper  insight  special 

finds  them  entirely  consistent  with  Arminian  doctrine.  texts. 

We  shall  consider  two  of  these  texts — the  two  of  chief  reliance  on 
the  Calvinistic  side. 

One  is  as  follows:  "  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  pre- 
destinate to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that 

PIRST    TKXT 

he  might  be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren. 
Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called:  and  whom 
he  called,  them  he  also  justified  :  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he 
also  glorified."  *  "What  is  the  meaning  of  did  foreknow — npoeyvo)  ? 
The  literal  sense  is  to  know  beforehand.  Some  of  the 
best  authorities  maintain  tliat  it  never  means  any  thing 
else.  If  the  word  is  to  favor  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  it  must  have 
the  sense  of  choosing  or  electing.  But  it  would  thus  have  much  the 
same  meaning  as  predestinate  ;  while  the  two  terms,  npoeyvcj  and 
TTpoojpioe,  as  here  used,  are  plainly  different.  The  element  of  knowl- 
edge cannot  be  eliminated  from  the  former.  It  may  include  defi- 
nite facts  respecting  the  persons  foreknown  ;  as,  for  instance,  that, 
on  the  divine  call  through  the  Gospel,  they  would  freely  accept  the 
offered  salvation  in  Christ,  and  that  they  would  abide  in  the  Chris- 
tian faith  and  life.  We  thus  preserve  the  sense  of  divine  prescience, 
which  cannot  be  eliminated  from  the  meaning  of  npoeyvG),  and  avoid 
the  unwarranted  meaning  of  election  or  choice  which  the  Calvin- 
istic doctrine  must  give  to  the  term. 

With  the  sense  of  divine  prescience  which  we  now  have,  all  parts 
of  the  texts  fall  into  harmony.  All  who  are  fore-  q^  charac- 
known  of  God  as  obedient  to  the  divine  call  are  pre-  ™R- 
destinated  to  an  ultimate  blessedness.  *^Them  he  also  called^' — 
through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  The  purpose  of  God  is  the 
salvation  of  all  who  are  so  called;  so  that  all  such  are  called  according 
to  his  purpose.  In  a  yet  deeper  sense  the  calling  is  according  to  his 
purpose  only  when  the  offered  salvation  is  freely  accepted.  Hence  it 
is  that  those  who  freely  accept  the  call  and  enter  into  a  state  of  salva- 
tion are  designated  as  the  called — rolg  KX.7]Tolg.'  "  AVhom  he  called, 
them  he  also  justified  :  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glori- 
fied." But  neither  the  justification  nor  the  glorification  is  without 
respect  to  a  free  compliance  with  its  divinely  required  terms.  The 
'  Rom.  xi,  17-21,  « Rom.  viii,  29,  30.  ^  1  Cor.  i,  24. 

'        19 


262  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

preponderance  of  exegetical  authority  is  in  favor  of  such  an  inter- 
pretation as  we  have  here  given  :  *'  The  best  commentators,  ancient 
and  modern,  are  mostly  agreed  that  Trpoeyvco  is  to  be  understood  of 
prescience  of  character  ;  and  npoojpLoe  of  determination  founded  on 
such  prescience. " ' 

The  second  text  that  we  had  in  view  is  in  these  words:  "  According 
as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame 
before  him  in  love :  having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of 
children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  his  will."  '^  Here,  then,  is  an  election  in  Christ,  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world,  unto  holiness;  and  a  predestination  unto  a  gra- 
cious sonship,  according  to  the  good  will  or  pleasure  of  God.  Do 
these  facts,  as  here  presented,  prove  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion? A  long  and  familiar  use  of  terms  in  a  given  sense  tends  to  the 
conviction  that  such  must  be  their  meaning.  No  doubt  this  is  the 
case  respecting  the  terms  election  and  predestination.  For  many 
minds  they  mean,  and  must  mean,  absolute  divine  determinations. 
However,  there  is  nothing  decisive  in  such  a  conviction,  and  the 
question  whether  such  is  the  meaning  of  these  terms,  as  here  used, 
is  still  fairly  in  issue. 

In  the  opening  of  this  chapter  St.  Paul  addresses  the  saints  in 
ELECTION  OF  Eplicsus,  aud  thanks  God  for  the  fullness  of  their  spir- 
THE  GENTILES,  ftual  blcsslngs.  Though  mostly  Gentiles,  yet  they  suf- 
fered no  restriction  of  Christian  privilege  on  that  account.  They 
came  into  possession  of  all  these  blessings  according  to  their  divine 
election  and  predestination.  So  much  is  clearly  in  the  meaning 
of  St.  Paul's  words.  What  is  the  subject  of  his  ruling  thought  ? 
THK  RULING  Clcarly  this  :  The  elective  purpose  of  God,  even  from 
THOUGHT.  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  to  admit  the  Gen- 
tiles, equally  with  the  Jews,  to  all  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ.  Great  prominence  is  given  to  this  thought  in  the  progress 
of  this  epistle.  Time  and  again  it  comes  to  the  chief  place.  It  is 
a  most  grateful  subject  to  the  mind  of  Paul,  the  apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. The  accomplishment  of  this  divine  purpose  in  the  evangeli- 
zation of  these  Ephesians  furnished  the  immediate  occasion  for  the 
prominence  here  given  it.  The  Gospel  was  preached  to  them  in 
fulfillment  of  the  elective  purpose  of  God,  and  all  who  truly 
received  it  came  into  possession  of  its  blessings  according  to  that 
same  purpose. 

But  there  is  nothing  in  all  this  which  either  expresses  or  implies 
an  absolute  personal  election  to  salvation.  If  we  should  even  con- 
'  Bloomfield:   Greek  Testament,  in  loc.  '  Eph.  i,  4,  5. 


DOCTRINAL  ISSUES.  263 

cede  the  personal  election  of  these  Ephesians  to  an  actual  salvation, 
it  is  still  open  for  us  to  maintain  that  it  was  on  the 

T     •  1.  •     1  <•       1       •         •  !•  •    1       •  ^^    ABSOLUTE 

divme  foresight  of  their  free  compliance  with  its  re-    election  to 
quired  terms.     There  is  nothing  in  the  text  at  all  con-    ^^^'•'^'^^°^- 
tradictory  to  this  view;  and  it  is  in  such  full  accord  with  the  Script- 
ures respecting  the  actual  conditionality  of  salvation,  that  it  may  be 
successfully  maintained  against  all  the  alleged  proofs  of  an  abso- 
lute personal  election.     Without  such  an  election,  these  Ephesians 
could  still  be  saved  according  to  the  elective  purpose  of       purpose  in 
God.     His  supreme  purpose  in  the  election  of  the  Gen-       election. 
tiles  to  the  full  privileges  of  the  Gospel  was  their  salvation.     In- 
deed, this  election  is  a  part  of  his  great  plan  in  sending  his  Son  to 
be  the  Saviour  of  the  world.'     Who,  in  the  face  of  the  texts  here 
given  by  reference,  can  hold  it  to  be  the  good  pleasure  of  God  to 
save  only  an  elect  part  of  mankind  ?     With  the  gracious  preference 
of  a  universal   salvation,  every  soul   might  be  saved 

'  -^       .  °  .  SAVED     AC- 

according  to  his  eternal  purpose  in  the  mission  of  his  cording  to 
Sou.  So  these  Ephesians  were  saved  according  to  their  election. 
divine  election,  in  the  fulfillment  of  which  the  Gospel  was  preached 
unto  them,  and,  being  freely  and  truly  accepted,  was  efficacious  in 
their  salvation.  Indeed,  the  purpose  of  God  in  their  election  to  the 
jjrivileges  of  the  Gospel  was  fully  accomplished  only  in  their  actual 
salvation  ;  so  true  it  is  that  they  were  saved  according  to  the  pur- 
pose of  their  divine  election.  But  there  is  nothing  in  all  this  con- 
trary to  the  truest  conditionality  of  salvation;  nothing  in  proof  of 
an  absolute  predestination  of  a  definite  part  of  mankind  to  final 
blessedness,  with  the  consequent  reprobation  of  the  rest  to  an  inev- 
itable penal  doom. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  the  very  many  texts  which  clearly 
mean  the  conditionality  of  final  blessedness,  which  are  not 

THE   RKStTLT 

else  open  to  any  satisfactory  interpretation,  and  which 
therefore  disprove  the  doctrine  of  an  unconditional  predestination. 
Arminianism  is  entirely  satisfied  with  this  position  of  the  issue. 

4.  Eejjrobation. — Reprobation  is  a  part  of  the  doctrine  of  predes- 
tination, and  means  the  decree  of  God  respecting  the  final  destiny 
of  the  non-elect.  As  the  decree  of  election  absolutely  determines 
the  future  blessedness  of  a  definite  part  of  mankind,  so  the  decree  of 
reprobation  absolutely  determines  the  future  misery  of  the  rest." 

The  word  preterition  is  in  favor  with  some  Calvinists.  It  is  j)re- 
f erred  as  a  softer  term  than  reprobation,  and  as  affording  some  relief 
from  the  severer  aspects  of  the  doctrine.     It  is  true  that  in  a  formula 

'  John  iii,  17  ;   1  Tim.  ii,  4  ;  1  John  iv,  14. 

^  Westminster  Confession,  chap,  iii,  sees,  iii,  vi,  vii. 


264  SYSTExMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  doctrine  we  have  the  words  "  to  pass  by  ;  "  but  these  words 
do  not  express  the  whole  of  the  doctrine:   "  The  rest 
of  mankind,  God  was  pleased  ...  to  pass  by,  and  to 
ordain  them  to   dishonor  and  wrath  for   their   sin."     They  were 
passed  by  simply  in  the  sense  that  no  atonement  was  made  for  them  ; 
but  this  was  only  a  part  of  the  decree  of  reprobation.     The  strong 
word  fore-ordained  is  used.     All  others  than  the  elect  are  "fore- 
ordained to  everlasting  death.''    No  stronger  word  is  used  respecting 
the  elect.     The  election    of  a  part  means  the  reprobation  of  the 
rest ;  otherwise,  God  must  have  been  blankly  indiffer- 

ELECTION  IM-  '  .  ^  .  .  •' 

PLIES  REPRo-  ent  to  their  destiny.  Nothing,  however,  could  be  more 
BATioN.  unreasonable  than  such  a  notion.     Hence  the  true  posi- 

tion is  with  the  Calvinistic  theologians  who  adhere  to  the  term 
reprobation,  and  to  all  that  it  here  means.  This  was  the  position 
of  Calvin  himself:  "  Many,  indeed,  as  if  they  wished  to  avert  odium 
from  God,  admit  election  in  such  a  way  as  to  deny  that  any  one  is 
reprobated.  But  this  is  puerile  and  absurd,  because  election  itself 
could  not  exist  without  being  opposed  to  reprobation.  God  is  said 
to  separate  those  whom  he  adopts  to  salvation.  To  say  that  others 
obtain  by  chance,  or  acquire  by  their  own  efforts,  that  which  elec- 
tion alone  confers  on  a  few,  will  be  worse  than  absurd.  Whom  God 
passes  by,  therefore,  he  reprobates,  and  from  no  other  cause  than 
his  determination  to  exclude  them  from  the  inheritance  which  he 
predestines  for  his  children." ' 

Eeprobation  is  contrary  to  the  divine  justice.  Of  course  the 
CONTRARY  TO  T^ply  Is,  that  it  means  simply  the  ordaining  of  sinful 
JUSTICE.  men  to  the  dishonor  and  wrath  which  they  deserve,  and 

hence  that  it  cannot  be  opposed  to  the  justice  of  God ;  that  it 
is  in  fact  "  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice."  It  is  readily  con- 
ceded that  there  can  be  no  injustice  in  the  infliction  of  deserved 
penalty.  This,  however,  does  not  close  the  question.  It  is  still 
open  to  inquire  whether  the  subjects  of  reprobation  really  deserve 
the  penal  doom  to  which  they  are  fore-ordained. 

The  desert  of  an  eternal  penal  doom  is  not  in  the  subjects  of  the 
UNDESERVED  rcprobatlon.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  sin  which  is 
DOOM.  assumed  to  have  such  desert  ?     The  answer  is  obvious: 

That  with  which  they  are  born.  Whether  it  is  an  inherited  guilt 
of  Adam's  sin  or  the  sin  of  an  inherited  depravity  of  nature,  it  con- 
cerns us  not  here  to  inquire.  It  suffices,  that  native  sin  is  held  to 
be  a  sufficient  ground  of  reprobation.     That  it  is  so  held  cannot  be 

'  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  163.  Such  is  the  view  of  Dr.  Dick  :  Theology,  vol.  i, 
pp.  367,  368  ;  also  of  Dr.  Shedd :  Dogmatic  Theology,  vol.  i,  pp.  429-431. 
Many  authorities  could  easily  be  added. 


DOCTRINAL  ISSUES.  265 

disputed.  The  very  familiar  position  is,  that,  as  original  or  ])irth 
sin  constitutes  in  all  men  the  desert  of  damnation,  God  might  gra- 
ciously elect  a  part  to  final  blessedness  and  justly  reprobate  the  rest 
to  eternal  misery,  since  the  reprobation  would  simply  determine  for 
them  the  penal  doom  which  they  deserve.  This,  then,  is  the  form 
of  sin  on  which  it  is  attempted  to  justify  the  doctrine  of  reproba- 
tion. But  the  justitication  cannot  be  thus  attained.  The  alleged 
ein  lies  wholly  apart  from  the  personal  agency  of  the  reprobate,  and 
therefore  cannot  constitute  in  them  any  desert  of  punishment. 
Hence  their  reprobation  would  bo  an  injustice. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  reprobation  has  respect  to  foreseen  actual 
sin,  the  charge  of  injustice  would  still  remain  in  all  its  rkspecting 
force.  It  would  so  remain  because  the  actual  sin  of  the  actual  sin. 
reprobate  would  be  as  thoroughly  necessitated  as  their  inherited  sin. 
It  is  here  that  the  "  passing  by  "  means  so  much.  In  the  work  of 
redemption  it  pleased  God  "  to  pass  by  "  the  reprobates.  This  is  a 
part  of  the  doctrine.  No  atonement  was  made  for  them  ;  no  help- 
ing grace  sufficient  for  a  good  life,  or  even  for  the  avoidance  of  sin, 
was  provided'  for  them.  Sin  is  to  them  a  necessity.  Such  it  is  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrines  which  underlie  the  decrees  of  election  and 
reprobation.  But  a  reprobation  for  unavoidable  sin  must  be  con- 
trary to  the  divine  justice. 

The  doctrine  of  reprobation  is  disproved  by  the  universality  of  the 
atonement ;  by  the  divine  sincerity  in    the  universal  decisitk 

overture  of  salvation  in  Christ ;  by  the  universal  love  facts. 

of  God.  It  suffices  that  we  here  merely  state  these  great  facts,  as 
they  were  sufficiently  discussed  in  our  treatment  of  the  extent  of 
the  atonement. 

The  decree  of  election  and  reprobation,  even  in  its  most  vital 
facts,  must  have  been  without  any  reason  in  the  thought 
of  God.     An  absolute  sovereignty  can  have  no  reason  without 

for  its  action  except  its  own  absoluteness.      But  that  reason. 

can  be  no  reason  for  any  one  act  rather  than  another.  If  God  had 
any  reason  for  the  exact  numbers  respectively  elected  and  repro- 
bated, then  his  decree,  which  unchangeably  fixed  these  numbers, 
could  not  have  been  an  act  of  absolute  sovereignty.  If  in  that  de- 
cree he  had  reprobated  those  whom  he  elected,  and  elected  those 
whom  he  reprobated,  his  sovereignty  would  have  been  just  as 
complete  as  it  was  with  his  actual  fore-ordinations.  To  deny 
this  is  to  deny  that  his  decree  of  predestination  was  an  act  of 
absolute  sovereignty ;  for  the  denial  must  assume  a  reason  for  the 
act  apart  from  that  sovereignty.  The  doctrine  can  admit  no  such 
a  reason. 

19  • 


266  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

It  is  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination  that  God  did  sovereignly 
ILLUSTRATIVE  ©lect  A,  B,  C,  a  part  of  mankind,  to  everlasting  life, 
STATEMENT.  and  that  he  did  reject  and  ordain  D,  E,  F,  the  rest, 
to  everlasting  misery.  It  is  also  in  the  doctrine  that  there  was  no 
reason  in  his  thought  why  he  should  so  elect  A,  B,  C,  instead  of 
D,  E,  E,  or  why  he  should  reprobate  D,  E,  F,  instead  of  A,  B,  C. 
The  fact  is  definitely  expressed  in  the  formulation  of  the  doc- 
trine, that  the  election  of  A,  B,  C,  was  without  foresight  of  any 
thing  in  them  as  the  reason  why  they  were  chosen  instead  of  D,  E, 
F.  Here,  then,  is  a  decree  of  predestination  so  arbitrary  in  itself, 
so  vast  in  the  sweep  of  its  absolute  determination  of  eternal  desti- 
nies, that  it  well  might  daze  even  celestial  intelligences,  and  yet 
a  decree  for  which,  in  its  most  vital  facts,  there  was  no  reason  in 
the  thought  of  God.  The  very  nature  of  election  and  reprobation, 
as  thus  disclosed,  suffices  for  their  utter  refutation. 

11.  Other  Points  in  Issue. 

1.  Limitation  of  the  Atonement. — It  is  true  that  not  a  few  who 
hold  the  Calvinistic  system  hold  also  the  universality  of  the  atone- 
ment. Whether  they  so  modify  the  system  as  to  bring  it  into  har- 
mony with  this  universality  we  are  not  here  concerned  to  inquire. 
A  PART  OF  THE  A  limitation  of  the  atonement  is  a  requirement  of  the 
SYSTEM.  system  in  its  regular  form,  and  mostly  has  a  place  in 
Calvinistic  creeds.  With  a  decree  of  predestination  which  abso- 
lutely determines  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  and  an  atonement 
which,  in  the  very  nature  of  it,  must  save  all  for  whom  it  is  made, 
its  limitation  to  a  part  of  mankind  must  be  intrinsic  to  the  system. 
However,  we  have  here  only  to  state  the  issue,  having  sufficiently 
considered  the  question  of  the  extent  of  the  atonement  in  our  dis- 
cussion of  that  subject. 

2.  Moral  Necessity. — The  doctrine  is  really  the  same  whether 
we  use  the  word  necessity  or  the  word  inability,  though  the  latter 
seems  now  more  in  favor  with  Calvinistic  authors.  If  we  are  in  a 
state  of  moral  necessity,  then  there  is  for  us  no  free  moral  agency. 
Our  volitions  must  be  determined  by  influences  over  which  we  have 
no  control.  The  choice  of  the  good  is  not  within  our  power,  not 
even  within  the  power  of  the  elect.  Only  an  absolute  sovereignty 
of  grace  can  turn  them  unto  the  good.  In  such  a  state  sinning  is 
SINNING  A  a  necessity,  and  to  the  elect  just  as  to  the  reprobate. 
NECESSITY.  ^  state  of  moral  inability  involves  precisely  the  same 
consequences.  The  inability  alleged  is  definitely  a  moral  inability 
to  the  choice  of  the  good.  The  further  consequence  is  that  of  an 
unavoidable  sinning. 


DOCTRINAL  ISSUES.  267 

It  is  easily  seen  that  such  a  doctrine,  whether  expressed  as  moral 
necessity  or  moral  inability,  is  openly  contrary  to  all  conditional- 
conditionality  of  salvation.  But  the  question  of  free  ity  excluded. 
agency  is  so  cardinal  in  a  system  of  theology  that  it  requires  a 
fuller  and  more  formal  treatment  than  can  properly  be  given  it 
under  the  present  heading. 

3.  IrresistibilUji  of  Saving  Grace. — When  it  is  the  pleasure  of 
God  to  bring  any  one  of  the  elect  into  a  state  of  salvation  he  is 
effectually  called.  The  call  is  made  efficacious  through  a  sovereign 
power  of  grace.  The  initial  work  is  that  of  regeneration.  Xo  act 
of  repentance  or  faith  is  conditional  thereto ;  no  manner  of  resist- 
ance can  prevent  it  when  the  hour  of  God's  pleasure  has  come  for 
its  accomplishment.  Such  is  the  doctrine  as  it  is  formulated  in 
Calvinistic  creeds  ; '  and  such  it  is  as  maintained  in  the  ablest  theo- 
logical works  of  Calvinistic  authorship. 

This  doctrine,  just  as  the  whole  system,  is  grounded  in  an  absolute 
divine  sovereignty.  It  follows  that  the  delays  in  the  o\  absolute 
salvation  of  the  elect,  however  long,  are  purely  from  soyereigntt. 
God's  own  pleasure  :  that  is  absolutely  determining.  No  faithful- 
ness nor  unfaithfulness  of  the  minister,  nor  any  act  of  the  elect,  can 
either  hasten  or  hinder  their  salvation  for  even  a  single  hour.  The 
all-pervasive  sense  of  Scripture  is  in  open  contradiction  to  this  doc- 
trine. 

Here  again  there  is  serious  perplexity  for  the  doctrine  respecting 
the  non-elect.  The  Gospel  is  preached  to  all  alike,  serious  per- 
It  is  so  preached  in  obedience  to  the  divine  behest.  The  plexities. 
preaching  is  a  divine  proffer  of  salvation  to  all,  and  a  call  to  repent- 
ance and  faith,  with  the  promise  of  salvation  to  all  who  comply. 
But  it  cannot  be  the  pleasure  of  God  to  save  the  non-elect,  since  in 
his  own  good  pleasure  he  has  unconditionally  fore-ordained  them 
to  an  eternal  penal  doom  and  excluded  them  from  the  covenant  of 
redemption.  They  were  not  given  to  the  Son  to  be  redeemed, 
because  it  was  not  the  pleasure  of  the  Father  that  they  should  be 
saved.  How  then  can  the  offer  of  salvation  be  made  to  them  ? 
And  how  can  they  be  required  to  repent  and  believe  unto  salvation, 
under  penalty  of  damnation  for  disobedience,  when  for  them  there 
is  no  salvation  in  Christ  ?  The  futile  attempts  of  the  doctrine  to 
extricate  itself  from  such  perplexity  really  concedes  the  impossibility. 
But  these  attempts  were  considered  and  their  fallacies  exposed  in 
our  treatment  of  the  extent  of  the  atonement. 

If  this  doctrine  of  effectual  calling  be  true  it  cannot  be  the  pleas- 

'  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  Of  the  Corruption  of  Man,  etc.,  articles 
x-xii  ;   Westminster  Confession,  chap,  x,  sees,  i,  11. 


268  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

lire  of  God  that  the  non-elect  should  accept  the  proffer  of  salvation 
made  to  them.      The  decree  of  predestination  which 

RESPECTING  n  t  • 

THENON-  excluded  them  from  the  covenant  of  redemption  and 

ELECT.  unconditionally  fore-ordained  them  to  a  penal  doom  is 

conclusive  of  this  fact.  Further,  if  in  this  case  God^s  only  law  of 
action  is  his  own  absolute  sovereignty,  the  non-elect  would  certainly 
be  efficaciously  called,  just  as  the  elect  are,  if  their  compliance  were 
his  pleasure.  Hence  we  are  shut  up  to  the  fact  that,  however  God 
may  call  the  non-elect,  or  with  whatever  intensity  of  words  or  pathos 
of  compassion  entreat  their  acceptance  of  his  proffered  salvation, 
such  acceptance  is  still  not  his  pleasure.  This  result  is  openly  con- 
tradictory to  the  divine  sincerity. 

It  is  the  pleasure  of  God  that  all  who  are  called  to  repentance 
and  faith  should  obey  and  be  saved.     It  is,  indeed,  his 

THE  PLEASURE  •'  Tmi  J!     • 

OF  GOD  IN  good  pleasure  that  all  should  be  saved.  The  proof  is 
CALLING  MEN.  ^^  ^^^  ScHptures t  "For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that 
he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  ''Who  will  have  all 
men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth."  ' 
Here  is  God's  gracious  asseveration  and  appeal  :  *'  As  I  live,  saith 
the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked  ;  but 
that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live:  turn  ye,  turn  ye  from 
your  evil  ways  ;  for  why  will  ye  die?'"*  Here  are  words  of  yearning 
compassion:  "  How  shall  I  give  thee  up,  Ephraim?  how  shall  I  de- 
liver thee,  Israel?  how  shall  I  make  thee  as  Admah?  how  shall  I  set 
thee  as  Zeboim  ?  mine  heart  is  turned  within  me,  my  repentings 
are  kindled  together."  ^  Yet,  if  the  doctrine  of  an  absolute  sover- 
eignty of  grace  be  true,  God  cannot  wish  the  salvation  of  any  who 
are  not  efficaciously  called.  How,  then,  could  he  sincerely  utter  such 
words  ?  "We  listen  to  the  pathetic  words  of  our  Lord:  "  0  Jerusa- 
woRDsoFouR  ^©m,  Jcrusalcm,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets,  and 
LORD.  stonest  them  which  are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would 

I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her 
chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not !  "  *  Yet,  if  the  doc- 
trine of  an  absolute  grace  be  true,  these  words  mean  no  pleasure  of 
the  Son  to  save  them  ;  for  with  such  a  pleasure  they  must  have  been 
saved.  Nothing  could  have  prevented  it.  There  could  be  no  hin- 
derance  to  an  absolute  power  of  grace  in  that  "ye  would  not."  A 
doctrine  which  is  so  openly  contradictory  to  such  texts  as  we  have 
here  adduced  cannot  be  a  truth  of  the  Scriptures. 

4.  Absolute  Final  Perseverance. — The  doctrine  is  that,  however 

'  John  iii,  16  ;  1  Tim.  ii,  4.  *  Ezek.  xxxiii,  11. 

^Hos.  xi,  8.  *Matt,  xxiii,  37. 


DOCTRINAL  ISSUES.  269 

believers  may  fall  into  sin,  sovereign  grace  must  finally  recover 
and  save  them.  It  is  a  part  of  the  system  constructed  upon  the 
ground  of  an  absolute  divine  sovereignty.  If  the  other  parts  are 
true  this  must  be  true.  If  the  decree  of  election  is  true  ;  if  the 
atonement  is  for  the  elect  only,  and  of  such  a  nature  that  it  must 
save  all  for  whom  it  is  made;  and  if  grace  is  irresistible  in  its  saving 
work,  then  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance  must  be  true.  Noth- 
ing, however,  is  thus  gained  for  its  truth,  but,  rather,  much  is  lost. 
The  disproof  of  the  other  parts  is  really  the  disproof  of  this;  for,  as 
an  intrinsic  part  of  the  system,  it  falls  with  the  other  parts. 

Alleged  proofs  of  the  doctrine,  while  plausible,  are  inconclusive. 
Some  texts  of  Scripture  seem,  on  the  face  of  them,  to  alleged 

favor  it,  but  a  deeper  insight  finds  them  entirely  con-  proofs. 

sistent  with  the  conditionality  of  final  perseverance.  "  My  sheep 
hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow  me:  and  I  give 
iinto  them  eternal  life  ;  and  they  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any 
man  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand.'' '  Such  is  the  assurance  from  the 
divine  side  ;  but  it  is  entirely  consistent  with  a  conditioning  fidelity 
on  the  human  side.  The  case  of  Judas  is  an  illustration.  From 
the  divine  side  these  words  pledged  to  him  all  that  they  pledged 
to  the  others  given  to  the  Son  by  the  Father;  yet  there  was  in  him, 
and  therefore  in  them,  the  possibility  of  apostasy.  "  For  the  gifts 
and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance."  ^  This  words  of 
is  utterly  without  proof  of  an  absolute  final  persever-  p^^l. 
ance,  except  on  the  assumption  of  an  absolute  sovereignty  of  grace 
in  every  instance  of  a  personal  salvation.  But  we  have  shown  that 
this  assumption  is  groundless.  "  Being  confident  of  this  very  thing, 
that  he  which  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perform  it  until 
the  day  of  Jesus  Christ."  ^  This  text  is  dependent  upon  the  same 
false  assumption  as  the  preceding  one  for  any  proof  of  an  absolute 
final  perseverance,  and  therefore  furnishes  none.  An  Arminian  can 
freely  use  these  words  of  assurance  to  the  doubting,  and  without  any 
thousrht  of  this  Calvinistic  sense.     "  Who  are  kept  by 

OF  PETER 

the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation."  *    Yes, 
every  trusting  soul  is  so  kept.     But  the  faith  is  Conditional  to  the 
keeping ;  and  as  it  involves  a  free  personal  agency  there  is  here  no 
doctrine  of  an  absolute  perseverance.     Indeed,  so  far  as  this  ques- 
tion is  concerned,  the  text  is  really  Arminian,  not  Calvinistic. 

The  grouping  of  a  few  texts  will  suffice  for  the  proof  of  a  possi- 
bility of  final  apostasy.  A  righteous  man  may  turn  away  to 
sin,  and  die  therein.^     The  branch  may  perish  from  the  living 

'  John  X,  27,  28.  «  Rom.  xi,  29.  ^  Phil,  i,  6. 

*  1  Pet.  i,  5.  s  Ezek.  xviii,  24-26. 


270  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

vine.'  Judas,  one  of  those  given  to  the  Son,  was  lost."  St.  Paul, 
even  with  his  full  assurance  of  a  state  of  salvation, 
apprehended  the  possibility  of  his  own  apostasy,  and 
strenuously  wrought  against  it.^  Christians  are  exhorted  to  dili- 
gence in  order  to  make  their  calling  and  election  sure ;  for  in  so 
doing  they  should  never  fall.^  Such  texts  as  we  have  here  ad- 
duced must  mean  the  possibility  of  a  final  apostasy. 

Arminius :  Writings,  vol.  iii  ;  Wesley  :  Predestination,  Works,  vol.  vi,  pp. 
24-63  ;  Fletcher  :  Checks,  Works,  vols,  i,  ii  ;  "Whitby  :  On  the  Five  Points  ; 
Tomline  :  A  Refutation  of  Calvinism  ;  Watson  :  Theological  Institutes,  part  ii, 
chaps,  xxv-xxviii ;  Copleston  :  Doctrines  of  Necessity  and  Predesination  ;  Fisk  : 
The  Calvinistic  Controversy  ;  Foster  :  Objections  to  Calvinism  ;  Lacroix  :  "  Wes- 
leyan  Synergism,"  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  January,  1880  ;  Whedon  : 
Freedom  of  the  Will,  part  ii,  §  3  ;  Calvin  :  Institutes,  book  iii,  chaps,  xxi-xxiv  ; 
Witsius  :  The  Covenants,  book  ii  ;  Toplady :  Doctrine  of  Absolute  Pr-edestina- 
tion  ;  Scott :  Remarks  on  Tomline's  Refutation  of  Calvinism  ;  Edwards:  Works, 
vol.  ii,  pp.  513-597 ;  Copinger :  Predestination,  Election,  and  Grace  ;  Howe  : 
Oracles  of  God,  part  ii,  "Decrees  ;  "  King  :  A  Discourse  on  Predestination,  with 
Notes  by  Whately  ;  Mozley  :  Augustinian  Doctrine  of  Predestination  ;  Graves  : 
Pi'edestination,  Works,  vol.  iii  ;  Forbes  :  Predestination  and  Free  Will. 

'  John  XV,  4-6.  "^  John  xvii,  12. 

« 1  Cor.  ix,  26,  27.  *  2  Pet.  i,  10. 


FREE  AGENCY.  271 


CHAPTER  III. 

FREE     AGENCY. 

I.  The  Freedom  ix  Question. 

In  this  discussion  it  is  important  to  determine,  first  of  all,  the 
freedom  in  question.  If  we  begin  in  a  negative  manner  it  may 
help  us  in  that  determination. 

1.  Xot  the  Freedom  of  Things. — There  is  no  freedom  in  things, 
and  the  term  has  no  proper  application  to  them  except  in  a  relative 
sense.  A  piece  of  timber  which  is  desired  for  use  may  illustra- 
be  held  fast  by  the  pressure  of  other  pieces.  When  re-  tions. 
lieved  of  this  pressure  we  may  call  it  free,  but  only  in  relation  to 
the  agency  of  those  who  would  remove  it  from  its  jilace.  The  true 
idea  may  be  more  clearly  given  with  the  application  of  the  term  to 
things  used  as  instruments.  The  freedom  of  instruments  is  purely 
in  their  relation  to  our  purpose  or  use.  A  wheel  which  we  would 
set  in  motion  may  be  free  to  turn  under  applied  force,  or  it  may  "be 
effectually  obstructed.  In  the  one  case  we  may  call  it  free,  and  in 
the  other  deny  its  freedom,  but  only  in  relation  to  our  own  agency. 
My  hand  is  free  in  this  writing,  but  simi^ly  as  free  from  all  hin- 
derance  to  my  so  using  it.  Both  wheel  and  hand  are  mere  instru- 
ments, without  any  freedom  in  themselves,  and  can  be  called  free 
only  in  relation  to  our  personal  agency.  Hence  there  is  no  free- 
dom of  things  which  can  mean  any  thing  directly  for  the  freedom 
here  in  question. 

'2.  Xot  the  Freedom  of  External  Action. — We  act  externally 
through  our  physical  organism.  There  may  be  the  freedom  of  such 
action  or  the  contrary.  Where  there  is  no  exterior  restraint,  and  the 
bodily  organism  is  in  a  healthy  state,  so  that  every  member  can  ful- 
fill its  office,  there  is  the  freedom  of  such  action.  But  if  there  be 
an  insuperable  exterior  restraint,  or  a  paralysis  of  the  bodily  mem- 
bers which  disables  them,  there  is  no  such  freedom.      ,,.^^„„  «„ 

MATURE    Or 

What,  then,  is  the  nature  of  this  freedom  ?  Our  bodily  srcn  frek- 
organism  is  purely  instrumental  to  our  external  action,  °^"" 
and  cannot  be  free  in  itself  because  of  its  instrumental  character. 
It  can  be  free  only  as  freely  usable.  Its  freedom  is  simply  that  of  a 
thing.  Such  freedom  can  mean  nothing  directly  for  the  freedom 
of  choice,  and  simply  concerns  our  power  of  giving  effect  to  our 


272  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

choices  through  external  action.  With  the  total  absence  of  such 
power  there  may  still  be  the  truest,  deepest  freedom  of  choice,  even 
as  it  respects  the  profoundest  realities  of  morality  and  religion. 

It  follows  that  any  definition  of  freedom  which  limits  it  wholly 
ERRONEOUS  ^r  cveu  mainly  to  the  freedom  of  external  action  mis- 
DEFiNiTioN.  takes  the  question,  and  defines  a  form  of  freedom  never 
in  issue  in  this  great  debate  of  the  centuries.  Yet  such  is  really 
the  definition  of  Edwards  :  *'  The  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of 
the  words  freedom  and  liberty,  in  common  speech,  is  power,  oppor- 
tunity, or  advantage,  that  any  one  has  to  do  as  he  pleases  :  or,  in 
other  words,  his  being  free  from  hinderance  or  impediment  in  the  way 
of  doing,  or  conducting  in  any  respect,  as  he  wills.  And  the  contrary 
to  liberty,  whatever  name  we  call  that  by,  is  a  person's  being  hindered 
or  unable  to  conduct  as  he  will,  or  being  necessitated  to  do  other- 
wise."' It  is  true  that,  in  addition  to  external  forms  of  action, 
this  definition  may  include  forms  more  strictly  mental,  and  there- 
THE  FREEDOM  f o^o  moro  propcrfy  internal ;  but  the  freedom  defined 
DEFINED.  still  lies  in  a  power  of  doing  as  we  please.     For  in- 

stance, if  we  would  profoundly  study  some  great  problem  of  philos- 
ophy or  religion,  and  have  power  and  opportunity  for  so  doing,  we 
are  free  ;  but  if  either  is  wanting  we  are  not  free.  But  while  the 
application  of  this  law  of  freedom  is  thus  broadened,  the  real  ques- 
tion in  issue  is  still  omitted.  The  freedom  defined  has  respect 
solely  to  our  executive  volitions,  or  the  power  of  giving  effect  to  our 
choices,  while  the  freedom  of  choice  itself  is  wholly  omitted.  Yet 
this  is  the  real  question  of  freedom. 

3.  Not  the  Freedom  of  the  Will. — The  will  is  a  mental  faculty, 
and  one  of  the  constituent  faculties  of  our  personality. 

THE  WILL.  • 

By  a  mental  faculty  we  mean  a  power  of  mental  action. 
If  the  mind  acts  it  must  have  a  power  of  acting.  If  it  acts  in  dif- 
ferent modes  there  must  be  a  distinction  of  faculties  answering  to 
these  different  modes.  The  mind  perceives,  remembers,  reasons, 
immediately  cognizes  primary  truths,  enters  into  states  of  feeling, 
and  we  find  for  each  form  of  action  a  corresponding  mental  faculty. 
We  tlius  classify  the  multiform  facts  of  psychology  and  generalize 
them  in  the  faculties  which  they  represent.  The  method  is  purely 
scientific. 

We  thus  determine  the  fact  of  a  faculty  of  will.  Volition  is  a 
A  MENTAL  spcclfic  form  of  mental  action.  We  cannot  resolve  it 
FACULTY.  into  any  other  mode.  Consciousness  fully  recognizes 
the  distinctions  of  perception,  memory,  reasoning,  intuition,  and 
feeling.  Between  them  there  can  be  no  interchange  of  modes. 
'  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  17. 


FREE  AGENCY.  273 

Therefore  they  unerringly  determine  for  the  mind  a  corresponding 
distinction  of  faculties.  There  is  the  very  same  authority  for  a 
faculty  of  will.  Any  proper  analysis  and  classification  of  mental 
facts  must  find  such  a  faculty.  There  are  facts  which  cannot  be 
attributed  to  any  other,  and  must  remain  groundless  without  such 
a  faculty. 

But  there  is  no  agency  in  the  will  itself ;  certainly  not  in  any 
strict  meaning  of  the  term.  "We  often  attribute  agency  ^o  agency  in 
to  material  things.  In  this  view  there  is  agency  in  "sklf. 
whatever  is  operative  in  the  mode  of  force,  as  in  gravitation,  chem- 
ical affinity,  electricity,  light,  heat.  Strictly,  however,  there  is  no 
agency  in  such  things,  because  they  possess  no  power  of  self-ener- 
gizing, and  all  their  action  is  conditioned  on  the  proper  collocations. 
Only  in  a  figurative  or  qualified  sense  can  agency  be  attributed  to 
them.  We  find  the  higher,  truer  meaning  of  the  term  only  in  per- 
sonality. There  we  reach  the  power  of  rational  self-energizing 
with  respect  to  ends.  There  is  no  such  power  in  the  will  itself.  It 
is  simply  a  faculty  of  the  personal  agent.  In  itself  it  is  without 
intelligence,  motivity,  or  causal  efficience.  The  will  may  be  individ- 
uated in  thought,  but  we  cannot  think  of  it  as  so  acting. 

The  will  is  an  instrumental  faculty  for  the  use  of  the  personal 
mind.     The  mind  is  a  personal  agent  because  it  has  the 

^  .       ^  .AN        INSTRP- 

faculties  of  such  an  agency,  with  the  power  of  so  using  mental  fac- 
them.  The  will  is  one  of  these  faculties.  All,  as  so  ^^^^* 
usable,  have  an  instrumental  quality,  and  no  one  more  truly  so 
than  the  will  itself.  The  hand  is  organically  adjusted  to  many  serv- 
ices, but  is  a  mere  instrument  for  the  use  of  our  personal  agency. 
In  itself  it  grasps  no  instrument  of  work,  wields  no  pencil  or  chisel 
of  high  art.  For  any  such  work  the  power  of  the  will  must  be 
put  into  the  hand.  But  the  will  is  equally  an  instrument  of  our 
personal  agency.  It  never  becomes  a  power  in  the  hand  for  any 
mechanical  or  artistic  work  except  through  the  energizing  of  the 
personal  agent.  The  same  is  true  of  it  in  all  forms  of  its  action. 
It  follows  that  it  is  not  free  except  as  freely  usable.  The  freedom 
of  the  will,  therefore,  cannot  be  the  true  question  of  freedom. 
This  fact  means  nothing  against  the  reality  of  freedom,  but  points 
to  its  true  location  in  our  own  personal  agency,  and  in  the  result 
will  make  it  clearer  and  surer. 

4.   Tlie  Trice  Question  of  Freedom. — We  reach  the  true  question 
of  freedom  only  in  personal  agency.     For  freedom  there     rational 
must  be  a  power   of  rational   self-action.     The   mere     self-action. 
power  of  self-action  will  not  suffice;  for  an  animal  has  such  power, 
and  yet  it  is  incapable  of  free  agency.     For  such  agency  there  must 


274  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

be  the  rational  conception  of  the  ends  of  our  action ;  a  power  of 
reflection  and  judgment  upon  ends  and  motives,  and  of  rationally 
determining  our  action  in  respect  to  them.  Such  agency  is  possible 
only  in  personality.  It  is  equally  true  that  the  power  of  such  agency 
is  a  reality  in  personality.  Freedom  lies,  not  in  the  constituent 
faculties  of  our  personality,  but  in  our  power  of  freely  using  them 
in  personal  action.  Such  power  is  central  to  personality  itself. 
Here  is  the  true  question  of  freedom. 

5.  Importance  of  the  Question. — It  will  suffice  that  we  present 
this  question  in  a  few  of  its  special  relations. 

The  importance  of  questions  of  psychology  arises  from  the  excel- 
iN  PSYCHOL-  lence  and  value  of  mind.  As  a  spiritual  essence,  with 
OGY.  high,  intellectual  and  moral  endowments,  it  is  infinitely 

superior  to  matter.  Much  of  our  knowledge  has  its  chief  value 
from  its  relation  to  mind.  The -things  known  may  possess  little 
value  for  our  merely  secular  life,  while  the  knowledge  of  tliem  may 
be  of  great  value  in  furnishing  and  broadening  the  mind.  The  sci- 
ences and  philosophies  have  their  special  interest  for  us  as  the  crea- 
tions of  mind,  and  their  chief  value  in  the  service  which  they  render 
to  our  intellectual  life.  In  all  the  forms  of  finite  existence,  as 
directly  known  to  us,  mind  is  infinitely  superior  to  every  other.  It 
is  equally  true  that  in  the  study  and  classification  of  the  facts  of 
mind,  in  their  generalization  in  the  faculties  which  they  represent, 
and  the  determination  of  the  laws  under  which  they  work,  nothing 
so  deeply  concerns  us  as  the  question  of  our  free  agency.  Are  we 
rationally  and  morally  free,  with  power  over  our  lives  ?  or  are  we 
the  passive  subjects  of  some  dominating  force,  just  as  an  animal  is 
subject  to  a  law  of  instinct  ?  Such  questions  rise  above  all  others 
in  the  study  of  the  mind.  The  question  of  free  agency  is  for  us  the 
profoundest  question  of  psychology. 

The  supreme  importance  of  this  question  in  ethics  is  manifest.  As 
the  results  of  our  moral  action  are  infinitely  profounder 
than  the  results  of  all  other  forms  of  action,  so  for  us 
the  question  of  freedom  must  have  supreme  concern.  Are  the  virtues 
which  have  such  a  fruitage  of  good  practicable  ?  Are  the  sins  which 
have  such  a  consequence  of  evil  avoidable  ?  Questions  of  weightier 
concern  we  could  not  ask.  Freedom  of  external  action,  political 
freedom,  intellectual  freedom  have  no  such  interest.  Indeed,  there 
is  no  place  for  a  moral  system  under  a  law  of  necessity.  If  God  is 
a  moral  ruler  over  responsible  subjects,  they  must  be  morally  free. 
The  logic  of  this  principle  now  commands  a  wide  assent.  Even 
where  the  accepted  philosophy  or  theology  really  denies  the  freedom 
it  is  yet  admitted  as  the  necessary  gi'ound  of  moral  obligation  and 


FREE  AGENCY.  275 

responsibility.  Thus  in  any  iinil  every  view  it  is  manifest  that  tlie 
question  of  freedom  has  profound  interest  from  its  relation  to 
ethics. 

Theology  gives  importance  to  the  question  of  freedom.  Our 
position  on  so  cardinal  a  question  must  influence  our  in- 
terpretation  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  source  oi  theology, 
and  chiefly  determine  the  cast  of  our  doctrinal  system.  Under  tlie 
law  of  a  necessary  accordance  of  the  doctrines  which  compose  the 
system  such  must  be  the  case.  Calvinism  is  logically  determined 
to  a  position  of  necessity  by  its  doctrines  of  the  divine  sovereignty, 
predestination,  and  monergism.  The  acceptance  of  a  true  moral 
freedom  in  man  would  greatly  modify  the  system,  just  as  the  syner- 
gism of  Melanchthon  modified  the  Lntheran  theology,  which  had 
been  strongly  Angustiuian.  Freedom  is  fundamental  efkkct  of 
in  Arminianism.  The  system  holds  accordingly  the  synergism. 
nniversality  and  provisional  nature  of  the  atonement,  and  the  con- 
ditionality  of  salvation.  In  this  matter  it  is  thoroughly  synergistic. 
If  its  doctrine  of  native  depravity  involves  a  moral  helplessness  it 
must  set  over  against  this  tlie  helping  grace  of  a  universal  atonement. 
Thus  the  fundamental  truth  of  freedom  requires  the  system  in  the 
definite  cast  of  its  doctrines.  These  brief  statements  may  suffice 
for  the  importance  of  the  question  of  freedom  in  theology. 

6.  TJieoretical  Forms  of  Necessitij. — A  very  brief  statement   of 
some  of  the  leading  forms  of  necessity  is  all  that  we  here  require. 

The  deepest  and  most  thorough  of  all  is  fate  or  fatalism.  Of 
conrse,  there  is  fatalism  in  all  forms  of  necessity  ;  yet 
the  term  has  a  meaning  of  its  own.  Fate  has  long  been 
in  use  for  the  expression  of  the  absolutest  necessity.  Otherwise 
the  term  is  indefinite  ;  so  that  it  expresses  the  necessitation  itself 
rather  than  any  definite  notion  of  the  necessitating  force  or  law. 
But  under  the  sway  of  fate  all  things  are  absolutely  determined ;  so 
that  they  could  not  but  be,  nor  be  other  than  they  are.  Fate  binds 
in  equal  chains  of  necessity  all  things  and  events,  all  intelligences, 
thoughts,  feelings,  volitions,  and  even  God  himself — if  there  be  a 
God.' 

Materialism  must  be  necessitarian.     The  forces  of  matter  operate, 
and  must  ever  operate,  under  a  law  of  necessity.     Even 

MATERIALISM 

the  concession  of  their  evolution  of  the  Cosmos,  with 
mind  itself,  could  not  mean  any  change  in  their  own  nature  or 
laws  which  could  lift  them  into  free  self-determining  forces.     If  the 
assumption  of  their  correlation  and  convertibility,  even  with  the 

'  Kraiith-Fleming  :   Vocabulary  of  the  Philosophical  Scieiioes,  in  verbo  ;  Gil* 
lett  :  The  Moral  System,  pp.  21-26. 


276  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

inclusion  of  mental  factS;,  be  true,  they  must  still  remain  subject  to 
their  own  necessitating  nature  and  laws. 

Pantheism  is  a  doctrine  of  necessity.  In  jDantheism  God  is  the 
totality  of  being,  and  works  from  an  inner  necessity  of 
his  nature,  without  consciousness,  intelligence,  or  aim. 
Finite  existences,  including  man,  are  mere  modes  of  himself,  and 
the  product  of  his  aimless  activity.  Hence,  man,  as  the  mode  of  a 
being  subject  to  a  law  of  absolute  necessity,  could  not  have  freedom 
of  action  in  himself.' 

Divine  predestination  involves  necessity.  Many  predestinarians 
pREDESTiNA-  dcuy  tMs  ;  others,  however,  avow  it,  and  are  logically 
TioN.  the  more  consistent.     Much,  however,   depends  upon 

the  nature  of  the  predestination  or  the  interpretation  of  the  terms 
in  which  it  is  expressed.  Absolute  decrees  must  have  their  effectu- 
ation in  the  divine  agency.  If  human  deeds  are  so  decreed,  they 
must  be  so  effectuated.  It  is  not  here  assumed  that  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  means  such  a  decreeing  of  all  human  deeds,  whether  good 
or  evil.  We  simply  state  the  implication  of  an  absolute  predestina- 
tion with  respect  to  all  events  or  deeds  so  decreed.  If  there  is  a 
predestination  which  does  not  require  the  divine  agency  for  its 
effectuation  it  cannot  be  in  accord  with  the  determining  principles 
of  the  Calvinistic  system,  and  may  be  consistent  with  freedom  and 
the  principles  of  Arminianism.  This  brief  statement  will  here 
suffice,  as  we  have  elsewhere  considered  the  question  of  predestina- 
tion. We  have  here  presented  it  simply  as  a  prominent  form  of 
necessity. 

That  motives  determine  our  volitions  or  choices,  and  that  choice 
DOMINATION  Eiust  go  wltli  the  strongcr  or  strongest  motive,  is  the 
OF  MOTIVES.  doctrine  of  many.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  philosophical 
or  moral  necessity,  or  of  moral  inability  to  the  good.  Some  have 
held  it  as  a  doctrine  of  real  necessity.  However,  it  is  now  mostly 
held  as  a  doctrine  of  the  truest,  highest  freedom.  We  regard  it  as 
one  of  very  real  necessity.  The  question  must  be  more  formally 
treated. 

II.  On"  the  Domination"  of  Motive. 

We  have  named  the  domination  of  motive  as  one  of  the  theoret- 
ical forms  of  necessity.  That  our  motives  determine  our  choice  is  a 
IN  cALTiNisT-  doctnue  much  in  favor  with  the  Calvinistic  system, 
ic  FAVOR.  There  are  obvious  reasons  for  this  fact.  One  is,  that  it 
frees  our  choices  from  all  contingency  and  gives  them  the  fixed 
order  which  is  in  such  complete  harmony  with  that  system.  Another 
is,  that  it  may  be  so  interpreted  as  seemingly  to  be  in  accord  with 
'  Jouffroy :  Introduction  to  Ethics,  vol.  i,  p.  193. 


FREE  AGENCY.  277 

freedom,  or  at  least  to  avoid  the  more  serious  objections  that  must 
beset  an  open  avowal  of  necessity.  It  is  maintained  that  the  mo- 
tive state  which  determines  the  choice  is  our  own,  and  for  which  we 
are  responsible.  We  choose  from  our  own  motive  impulse,  and  for 
the  satisfaction  of  our  own  appetence  or  disposition.  Much  that 
is  plausible  may  thus  be  said,  but  not  enough  to  conceal  the  neces- 
sity that  lies  in  the  determining  power  which  the  theory  assigns  to 
motive. 

1.  Choice  as  the  Stronger  Motive. — This  is  the  doctrine  as  usually 
expressed.  The  deeper  principle  is,  that  motive  determines  the 
choice.  It  is  no  longer  simply  the  occasion  or  reason  the  deeper 
of  the  choice,  but  its  cause.  It  follows  that  the  choice  principle. 
is  as  the  stronger  or  strongest  motive.  In  the  case  of  two  opposing 
motives  of  exactly  equal  force  the  mental  state  would  be  practically 
the  same  as  a  state  of  indifference,  though  psychologically  different; 
that  is,  there  would  be  no  free  motive  force  for  the  determination 
of  any  choice.  In  the  case  of  a  stronger  or  strongest  motive  all 
the  excess  of  strength  would  be  so  much  free,  active  force,  and  the 
only  force  which  could  be  causal  to  any  volition.  Accordingly,  the 
whole  doctrine  is  this:  Motive  causally  determines  the  choice: 
hence,  in  the  case  of  a  single  motive,  it  determines  the  choice ;  and 
in  the  case  of  two  or  more  opposing  motives  the  stronger  or  strong- 
est determines  the  choice. 

There  is  little  need  of  verifying  this  statement  of  the  doctrine  by 
the  citation  of  authors.  To  the  question,  What  determines  the 
will?  Edwards  answers:    "  It  is  sufficient  to  my  present 

KDWARDS 

purpose  to  say,  it  is  that  motive  which,  as  it  stands  in 
the  view  of  the  mind,  is  the  strongest  that  determines  the  will.^^^ 
We  cite  a  few  more  words  to  the  same  point.  ''  It  is  also  evident, 
from  what  has  been  before  proved,  that  the  will  is  always,  and  in 
every  individual  act,  necessarily  determined  by  the  strongest  motive; 
and  so  is  always  unable  to  go  against  the  motive  which,  all  things  con- 
sidered, has  now  the  greatest  strength  and  advantage  to  move  the 
will.^"  These  positions  are  elaborately  maintained,  while  opposing 
views  are  elaborately  controverted.  "  If  objects  of  desire  have  no 
tendency  to  move  the  will  in  a  particular  direction,  they 
are  not,  properly  speaking,  motives.  If  they  have  such 
a  tendency,  they  must  actually  move  the  will,  provided  there  is  noth- 
ing which  has  a  tendency  to  move  it  in  a  different  direction.  When 
on  one  side  there  is  no  influence,  ayiy  influence  on  the  opposite  side 
must  turn  the  scale.  Whatever  does  not  do  this  has  no  influence 
in  the  case."'  Here  is  a  repetition  of  the  doctrine  of  Edwards. 
'Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  4.  ^ Ihid.,  p.  101.  *Day:  TJie  Will,  p.  64. 

20  • 


278  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY, 

Two  principles  are  specially  obvious  in  the  citation  :  one,  that  mo- 
tive determines  the  choice  ;  the  other,  that  the  choice  mast  be  as 
the  stronger  or  strongest  motive. 

2.  Ascertainment  of  the  Stronger  Motive. — If  proof  be  demanded 
ONLY  FROM  fo^"  ^^^^  posltlon  SO  positively  asserted,  that  the  choice 
THE  RESULT.  must  always  be  according  to  the  comparative  strength 
of  the  motive,  all  that  can  be  given  is  that,  as  motive  determines 
the  choice,  so  the  determination  must  be  according  to  the  law  of 
comparative  strength.  The  motive  acts  as  a  causal  force  and  im- 
mediately produces  the  elective  volition  as  an  effect.  Under  such  a 
law  the  stronger  or  strongest  motive  at  any  given  instant  must  in- 
evitably determine  the  choice,  just  as  the  heavier  weight  determines 
the  action  of  the  balance.  But  the  theory  cannot  return  with  the 
strongest  motive  so  found  to  prove  that  motive  determines  the 
choice,  because,  in  the  inevitable  logic  of  the  case,  it  must  make 
good  this  position  before  it  can  find  the  strongest  motive  in  the 
determined  result.  Further,  it  must  prove  that  the  domination  of 
motive  is  absolute,  just  as  the  domination  of  the  weight  is  absolute 
over  the  turning  of  the  balance,  before  it  can  find  the  strongest 
motive  in  the  determined  result.  With  such  a  domination  of 
motive  there  is  no  possible  escape  from  the  absolutest  necessitation 
of  choice. 

3.  Necessity  hi  Motive  Domination. — The  domination  of  motive 
FORMERLY  SO  uscd  to  bc  hcM  as  a  law  of  necessity,  at  least  of  moral 
HELD.  necessity,  while  now  it  is  not  only  held  to  be  consistent 
with  freedom,  but  is  even  proclaimed  as  the  highest  law  of  freedom. 
The  truth  is  in  the  former  view.  To  deny  necessity  is  to  concede 
the  contingency  of  choice,  or  a  power  of  alternative  election ;  for 
such  a  contingency  or  alternative  power  is  the  only  contrary  to 
necessity  ;  yet  it  is  against  this  very  contrary  that  the  domination  of 
motive  is  maintained. 

Most  that  concerns  us  just  here  is,  to  point  out  the  fact  of  neces- 
sity in  this  theory.  Hereafter  the  freedom  of  choice  will  be  formally 
treated,  and  in  that  treatment  the  proper  relation  of  motive  to 
choice  will  be  shown. 

It  is  claimed  in  support  of  the  theory,  that  if  the  choice  does  not 
go  with  the  stronger  motive,  then  it  must  not  only  be 

ALLEGED  O  .  °  ,      '  ,  .  •' 

PROOF  OF  Without  motive,  but  against  motive,  as  it  must  go 
DOMINATION,  ^galust  all  the  excess  of  the  stronger  above  the  weaker. 
This  claim  must  assume  that  motive  causally  determines  the  choice, 
and  that  choice  is  an  immediate  effect  of  the  motive  force.  But  if 
choice  is  so  determined  there  can  be  no  escape  from  necessity.  The 
theory  cannot  admit  any  power  over  motives,  or  any  intervention 

3 


FREE  AGENCY.  279 

of  personal  agency  whereby  the  elective  decision  may  be  delayed, 
while  the  motive  state  may  be  changed.  Any  motive  state  at  all 
consistent  with  the  theory  must  be  purely  spontaneous,  and  must 
immediately  determine  the  volitional  result.  But  such  a  result  must 
be  necessitated. 

Necessity  lies  in  the  very  notion  of  the  causal  relation  of  motive 
to  choice  which  the  theory  maintains.  Choice  must  neckssity  in 
have  a  cause  ;  but  motive  is  the  only  possible  cause ;  ''^"*^  theory. 
therefore  motive  must  determine  the  choice.  Choice  takes  one 
direction  rather  than  another  because  the  motive  so  determines : 
this  is  the  only  possible  account  of  the  particular  direction ; 
therefore  motive  must  causally  determine  the  choice.  Some, 
while  holding  substantially  these  views,  deny  that  motive  is 
the  efficient  cause  of  clioice.  "  Motives  are  not  the  efficient 
cause  of  volitions.  They  furnish  the  material,  the  occasion,  and 
the  end  or  object  of  the  action ;  and  are  absolutely  necessary  for 
this.  The  will  furnishes  the  efficiency,  and  the  form  of  choice. 
But  the  form  is  to  be  filled  with  contents  ere  volition  can  be  con- 
summated."' All,  however,  that  is  thus  excepted  from  the  causal 
force  of  the  motive  is  the  will  in  the  act  of  choosing.  But  no  theory 
of  the  domination  of  motive  could  mean  that  the  motive  force  acts 
directly  upon  the  will  to  cause  the  choice.  The  motive  determines 
the  personal  agent  to  such  use  of  the  will.  Hence  the  exception  of 
the  will  from  the  immediate  causal  action  of  the  motive  brings 
in  no  freedom  of  choice.  If  the  motive  causes  the  agent  to 
choose  just  according  to  its  strength  or  bent,  the  necessitation  is 
just  as  absolute  as  though  motive  causally  acted  directly  upon  the 
will. 

4.  A  Law  of  Universal  Necessity. — If  motives  dominate  our 
choices,  there  is  for  us  no  freedom  of  choice.  The  the-  no  power 
cry  can  admit  no  power  of  our  personal  agency  over  over  motives. 
our  motive  states.  If  we  would  attempt  to  control  or  modify  these 
states  we  must  choose  so  to  do ;  but  we  cannot  so  choose,  except  as 
we  are  determined  thereto  by  a  motive.  The  motive  must  arise 
spontaneously.  We  have  no  power  to  cast  about  for  reasons 
against  a  present  impulse  unless  we  are  so  determined  by  the  power 
of  a  motive  which  must  be  on  hand,  if  on  hand  at  all,  without  any 
agency  of  our  own.  Necessity  lies  in  such  subjection  to  motive.  It 
is  the  same,  whatever  the  motive,  or  however  it  may  be  designated. 
A  law  of  necessity  has  determined  all  human  volitions.  Not  a  sin- 
gle choice  could  have  been  avoided  or  in  the  least  varied  ;  not  one 
could  have  been  added  to  the  actual  number.  We  are  the  passive 
'  Henry  B.  Smith :  Faith  and  Philosophy,  p.  377. 


280  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

subjects  of  spontaneous  impulses,  and  without  any  true  personal 
agency,  rational  or  moral. 

There  must  be  the  same  determining  law  for  all  finite  intelli- 
uNivERSAL  gences,  and  even  for  God  himself.  In  all  the  realm  of 
NECESSITY.  mind  a  law  of  necessity  reigns,  has  reigned,  and  must 
forever  reign.  Of  all  actual  volitions,  good  and  evil,  none  could 
have  been  avoided ;  nor  could  one  have  been  added.  It  must  be 
in  the  future  as  it  has  been  in  the  past.  Necessity  is  the  universal 
and  eternal  law. 

III.  On  Choosijstg  as  We  Please. 

1.  As  a  Formula  of  Freedom. — In  the  use  of  such  a  formula  we 
express  a  doctrine  of  freedom  in  much  favor  with  many  who  hold 
the  domination  of  motive  over  choice.  To  choose  as  we  please  is 
to  choose  freely  and  responsibly,  no  matter  what  the  moral  necessi- 
tation. 

The  aim  of  the  doctrine  so  formulated  is  to  bring  into  harmony 
AIM  OF  THE  certain  principles  which,  at  least  seemingly,  are  in  con- 
DocTRiNE.  trary  opposition.  For  instance,  a  moral  inability  to  the 
choice  of  the  good  underlies  a  responsible  freedom  to  such  choice. 
How  can  such  freedom  accord  with  such  inability  ?  Clearly,  there 
is  here  a  perplexing  contrariety  of  principles.  Inability  is  a  reality, 
not  a  mere  word.  If  we  qualify  it  as  moral,  it  is  still  a  reality,  just 
as  any  mental  or  physical  inability  is  a  reality.  If  it  be  with  respect 
to  some  doing,  any  form  of  inability  is  a  real  impotence  to  such 
doing.  A  moral  inability  to  the  choice  of  the  good  is  a  real  inabil- 
ity which  renders  the  good  impossible.  This  is  necessity.  It  is 
very  real  necessity  according  to  the  philosophy  which  makes  so 
much  account  of  our  choosing  as  we  please,  for  the  inability  lies  in 
an  incapacity  for  any  actual  motive  to  the  choice  of  the  good,  which 
yet  this  philosophy  holds  to  be  an  absolute  necessity  to  such  choice. 
Further,  the  choice  of  the  evil  is  the  only  alternative  to  such  ina- 
bility. 

The  reconciliation  of  moral  necessity  with  a  responsible  freedom 
is  attempted  on  the   ground  of  our  choosing  as  we 

TO  RECONCILE  ■,  Ti!  1  j.1  -1    -j.    •      1  1  J 

NECESSITY        please.  11  we  choose  the  evil  it  is  because  we  are  pleased 
WITH  FREE-      to  choose  it.     The  only  bar  to  the  choice  of  the  good 

DOM  . 

is  that  we  are  not  pleased  to  choose  it.  Thus  our 
choices  are  our  own  ;  and  it  is  enough  for  our  responsible  freedom 
that  they  are  made  according  to  our  own  pleasure.  In  so  choosing, 
no  matter  what  or  why,  we  choose  freely  and  responsibly.  But 
what  if  the  good  be  impossible,  and  the  evil  a  necessity  ?  It  mat- 
ters not,  since  it  is  only  a  moral  inability  or  necessity,  and  lies  in 


FREE  AGENCY.  281 

our  own  disposition.  It  is  still  true  that  we  choose  as  we  please, 
and  that  we  could  choose  otherwise  if  we  so  pleased.  Even  if  we 
cannot  so  please,  the  facts  remain  the  same :  we  choose  as  we  please, 
and  therefore  freely  and  responsibly. 

If  really  consistent  principles  seem  discordant,  it  is  proper,  and 
may  even  be  laudable,  to  set  them  forth  in  the  light  of  ^o  kkconciu- 
their  harmony;  but  it  is  not  laudable,  nor  even  proper,  ation. 
to  attempt  the  reconciliation  of  really  contradictory  principles. 
Such  we  think  the  attempt  to  reconcile  a  moral  inability  to  the 
good  with  freedom  to  the  good,  on  the  ground  of  our  choosing  as 
we  please.  There  can  be  no  freedom  to  any  doing  without  the 
requisite  ability.  So  there  can  be  no  freedom  to  the  choice  of  the 
good  in  a  state  of  moral  inability  to  that  choice. 

3.  A  Nullity  for  Freedom. — This  formula  is  a  nullity  for  free- 
dom, because  it  simply  means  an  immediate  choosing 

'      ^  -"^  -f  O  MEANING   OV 

according  to  the  motive  state.  It  cannot  mean  any  such  cuoos- 
thing  more,  because  the  philosophy  which  so  expresses  ^^^' 
its  doctrine  of  freedom  admits  no  other  mental  fact  which  can  hare 
any  direct  part  in  choice.  It  allows  no  place  for  a  proper  personal 
agency  which  may  act  above  any  given  motive  state  and  rationally 
determine  the  choice.  If  in  any  instance  it  may  seem  to  admit 
such  an  agency,  yet  it  cannot  do  so  in  fact  because  it  really  denies 
such  agency.  Any  seeming  delay  for  reflection  and  judgment  must 
arise  from  the  presence  and  action  of  some  spontaneous  motive 
impulse  over  which  we  have  no  control.  Choosing  as  we  please 
means  an  immediate  choosing  in  accord  with  our  inclination:  sim- 
ply this;  nothing  other  or  more. 

Such  a  choosing  means  nothing  for  freedom.  Xor  can  it  mean 
any  tiling,  since  it  gives  us  no  other  fact  of  choice  than  nothing  for 
a  motive  state  and  an  immediate  elective  decision  in  freedom. 
accord  with  it.  As  these  facts  mean  nothing  of  themselves  for  the 
freedom  of  choice,  neither  can  this  formula  mean  any  thing,  since  it 
gives  us  no  new  fact  of  choice,  nor  any  new  office  of  facts  previously 
known,  but  leaves  us  in  the  old  position  of  choosing  immediately 
from  thie  motive  impulse,  and  without  any  power  to  prevent  or  mod- 
ify the  result.  Such  a  choosing  as  we  please  is  indeed  a  nullity  for 
freeaom. 

3.  Consisfenf  with  Determining  Inclinatio?i. — All  the  freedom 
claimed  or  claimable  under  this  formula  must  lie  in  the  fact  that  the 
choice  goes  with  the  inclination.  Any  restraint  to  such  choosing 
or  constraint  to  a  contrary  choosing  would  be  necessita- 

TFTE  DOCTRINE. 

tion,  but  so  long  as  the  inclination  determines  the  choice 

there  is  true  freedom.     Such  is  the  doctrine.     But  such  a  freedom 

20  ■■' 


282  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

must  be  consistent  with  the  most  necessitating  inclination.  It 
is  easily  conceivable  that  an  inclination  might  be  so  strong  as  abso- 
lutely to  dominate  the  mind.  There  is  no  power  to  resist  its  force. 
By  its  own  strength  it  instantly  and  irresistibly  determines  the 
mind  to  the  choice  of  its  end.  Is  this  a  choosing  as  we  please  ? 
According  to  this  philosophy  no  choosing  could  be  more  so.  Indeed, 
the  stronger  the  inclination,  the  more  thoroughly  it  draws  into  itself 
all  thought  and  feeling;  and  the  more  resistless  its  force,  the  more 
completely  is  it  a  choosing  as  we  please.  Is  such  a  choice  in  free- 
TiEw  OF  ED-  <iom  ?  Yes,  according  to  this  philosophy,  and  in  the 
WARDS.  very  highest  freedom.     '''He  that  in  acting  proceeds 

with  the  fullest  inclination  does  what  he  does  with  the  greatest 
freedom.^' '  If  this  be  true  of  any  other  form  of  action  it  must  be 
true  of  choice.  It  follows  that  such  freedom  is  consistent  with  the 
most  absolute  necessity.  But  freedom  and  necessity  are  intrinsic- 
ally contrary  to  each  other,  and  never  can  be  coincident  in  the 
same  volition.  Hence  there  is  no  freedom  in  such  a  choosing  as 
we  please. 

4.  Indifferent  ivlience  or  what  the  Inclination. — If  we  are  free  in 
THE  CASE  our  volitions,  and  responsible  for  the  same,  because 
STATED.  w^Qj  are  determined  by  our  own  disposition,  and  none 

the  less  so  even  when  they  are  necessarily  determined,  it  matters  not 
what  the  origin  or  character  of  our  disposition.  The  freedom  and 
responsibility  rest  purely  upon  the  ground  that  the  disposition  or 
inclination  is  our  own,  and  determinative  of  our  choice.  ^^The 
THE  YOUNGER  truth  Is  that  there  is  no  inconsistence  between  the 
EDWARDS.  most  efficacious  influence  in  moral  necessity  and 
accountableness.  Let  the  influence  be  ever  so  great,  still  the  man 
acts  voluntarily,  and  ...  he  is  accountable  for  his 
voluntary  actions."'  **The  moment  that  the  disposi- 
tion is  seen  the  moral  sense  is  correspondingly  affected,  and  rests 
its  whole  estimation,  whether  of  merit  or  of  demerit,  not  on  the 
anterior  cause  which  gave  origin  to  the  disposition,  but  on  the 
character  which  it  now  bears.  .  .  .  How  the  disposition  got  there 
is  not  the  question.  .  .  .  It  is  enough  for  the  moral  sense  that  the 
disposition  is  there.'' ' 

Such  is  the  philosophy  of  our  freedom  and  responsibility,  on 
CRITICISM  OF  tti6  ground  of  our  choosing  as  we  please.  If  our  own 
THE  DOCTRINE,  dispositiou  determines  our  choice,  whatever  its  origin^  or 
however  necessitating  its  determining  power,  we  are  thoroughly 

'  Edwards  :  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  133. 

'  The  yoianger  Edwards  :  "Works,  vol.  i,  p.  307. 

*  Chalmers  :  Lectures  on  Romans,  p.  125. 


FREE  AGENCY.  283 

free  and  responsible.  The  disposition  which  absolutely  determines 
our  choice  might  be  wrought  in  us  by  some  exterior  agency  against 
which  we  are  utterly  powerless,  or  might  be  some  native  idiosyncrasy 
without  in  the  least  affecting  our  responsibility;  for  in  the  deej)est 
sense  of  this  pliilosophy  any  choosing  in  such  a  state  would  be  a 
choosing  as  we  please.  Here,  then,  is  a  choice  which  no  intelligent 
and  upright  judicatory  would  pronounce  free  and  responsible,  nor 
could  without  execration  in  the  common  moral  judgment,  which 
yet  this  philosophy  must  pronounce  free  and  responsible  in  the 
deepest  sense  of  the  terms. 

IV.  Mental  Facts  of  Choice. 
1.  Freedom  of  Choice  a  Question  of  Psycliology. — In  saying  that 
freedom  of  choice  is  a  question  of  psycliology  we  do    otoer  facts 
not  mean  that  it  is  exclusively  such.     Many  other  facts    o*"  weight. 
have  weight  in  the  proof  of  freedom,  a  few  of  which  may  be  stated. 
Such  is  the  fact  of  a  common  sentiment  or  conscious-    sentimkntop 
ness  of  freedom.     We  feel  that  we  are   free  in  our    FREEDONt. 
choices  and  executive  volitions.     There  is  no  sense  of  either  an  in- 
terior or  exterior  constraint,  while  there  is  the  sense  of  an  alterna- 
tive power.     If  there  be  not  the  reality  of  freedom  this  common 
consciousness  is  deceptive.     If  it  may  be  so  in  this  case,  so  may  it 
be  in  others.     Consciousness  would  thus  be   discredited,  and  no 
ground  of  assured  knowledge  could  remain.     But  consciousness  is 
trustworthy,  and  its  testimony  to  the  truth  of  freedom  remains  sure 
against  all  opposing  subtleties.     Tlie  sense  of  moral  re- 

O  ...  f  .  SENTIMENT    OP 

sponsibility  is  a  sure  witness  to  the  truth  of  freedom,  responsibili- 
We  attribute  ethical  quality  to  our  personal  acts,  and  ^^' 
have  a  sense  of  merit  or  demerit  for  the  same,  as  they  may  be  good 
or  evil.  Underlying  this  sense  of  merit  or  demerit  is  the  conscious- 
ness of  freedom  in  our  personal  deeds.  The  notion  of  the  notion  op 
justice  must  include  the  notion  of  freedom.  In  its  Ji^stice, 
strictly  distributive  offices  justice  rewards  men  according  to  their 
desert.  If  sin  deserves  its  penal  infliction  there  must  be  freedom 
in  the  sinning.  This  is  the  common  moral  judgment.  Hence  it 
is  that  the  notion  of  justice  cannot  be  complete  without  the  idea 
of  freedom. 

These  facts,  which  witness  so  strongly  to  the  truth  of  free- 
dom, are  mental  facts,  and,  therefore,  belong  to  the  facts  of  psy- 
chology ;  but  they  have  no  direct  part  in  choice  as  a  personal 
act.  Therefore  they  do  not  belong  to  the  class  of  facts  which,  as 
concerned  in  the  very  act  of  choice,  directly  witness  to  the  truth 
of  freedom. 


284  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

As  choice  is  purely  a  mental  act,  or  an  act  of  personal  mind,  it 
CHOICE  A  MKN-  ^lust  be  Open  to  psychological  study.  In  mental  science 
TAL  ACT.  yfQ  study  thc  operations  of  the  mind,  what  it  does,  and 

the  different  forms  of  its  action.  Many  of  these  forms  are  com- 
plex. Few  personal  acts  are  solely  from  one  power  ;  and  it  is  only 
by  study  and  analysis  that  we  find  the  elements  of  any  complex 
form  of  mental  action.  This  method  is  legitimate  in  the  study  of 
ITS  PROPER  choice.  We  may  treat  choice  as  a  single,  isolated  voli- 
TREATMENT.  tlou,  but  such  a  treatment  can  never  shed  any  light 
upon  the  question  of  freedom.  Nor  can  it  give  us  the  true  sense 
of  choice.  The  specific  elective  volition  is  but  the  completing  fact 
of  choosing,  while  choice  itself  is  a  complex  act  and  includes  other 
mental  facts.  A  psychological  study  of  the  question  of  freedom 
requires  a  knowledge  of  all  the  mental  facts  which  have  any  part 
in  choice  itself. 

2.  JVeed  of  All  the  Mental  Facts. — Whether  choice  is  an  imme- 
diate effect  of  the  spontaneous  motive  state,  or  whether  it  is  an  act 
of  our  personal  agency  through  reflection  and  judgment,  must  be 
■decisive  of  the  question  of  freedom.  If  the  former  be  the  true  and 
whole  account  of  the  nature  of  choice,  necessity  must  be  the  result ; 
bat  if  the  latter  be  the  true  account,  freedom  must  be  the  result. 
As  the  mental  facts  of  choice  are  intrinsic  to  its  very  nature,  they 
are  all  necessary  to  a  right  conclusion  respecting  its  freedom.  With 
a  part  of  the  facts  the  elective  decision  must  be  an  immediate  effect 
of  the  spontaneous  motive  state,  and,  therefore,  without  freedom  ; 
while  with  all  the  facts  that  decision  must  be  from  our  personal 
agency  in  the  rational  use  of  our  personal  faculties,  and,  therefore, 
in  freedom. 

3.  Deficiency  of  the  Usual  Analysis. — In  a  simple  and  seemingly 
THE  COMMON  complctc  statcmeut  of  the  mental  facts  of  choice  three 
ANALYSIS.  are  given  :  an  end,  a  motive  state,  the  elective  decision. 
This  analysis,  however,  is  utterly  deficient.  By  the  omission  of  a 
vital  mental  fact  choice  itself  is  placed  in  immediate  sequence  to 
the  motive  state.  In  this  case  there  cannot  be  a.  proper  choice. 
There  might  be  a  higher  intelligence  in  the  voluntary  action  of  a 
man  than,  in  that  of  an  animal  ;  that  is,  the  man  might  apprehend 
in  thought  both  the  end  and  the  motive  impulse,  which  the  animal 
cannot  do  ;  but  this  would  make  no  vital  distinction  between  the 
two  in  the  case  of  choice.  The  three  facts  of  an  end,  a  motive  im- 
pulse, and  a  volition  toward  the  end  may  all  be  affirmed  of  an  ani- 
viTAL  PART  Di^l-  What  is  distinctive  of  personal  choice  arises  from 
OMITTED.  the  rational  use  of  our  intelligence.  This  is  a  vital  fact 
of  choice  additional  to  the  three  previously  named.      Its  omission 


FREE  AGENCY.  285 

is  the  fatal  error  of  this  deficient  analysis.  The  error  might  still 
be  corrected  by  the  interpretation  of  choice,  but  only  as  the  inter- 
pretation supplied  the  omitted  mental  fact.  But  with  those  who 
omit  this  fact  in  their  analysis  there  is  no  reason  to  supjily  it 
through  an  interpretation.  It  is  not  required  by  the  philosophy 
which  can  so  give  the  mental  facts  of  choice. 

If  the  elective  volition  is  in  immediate  sequence  to  the  motive 
impulse,  it  must  be  a  necessary  effect  of  that  impulse.  ^  necessary 
There  can  be  no  intervention  of  our  personal  agency  e""kct. 
whereby  the  result  can  be  prevented  or  modified.  A  motive  can 
act  only  in  one  of  two  modes:  either  as  a  solicitation  or  inducement 
to  the  mind  as  a  personal  agent,  the  end  of  which  he  may  either 
accept  or  refuse  ;  or  as  a  causal  efficience  immediately  determining 
the  mind  to  the  end.  In  the  latter  case  there  can  be  no  personal 
agency  in  the  resulting  volition.  The  causal  force  of  the  motive 
determines  the  action  of  the  mind,  just  as  the  weight  determines  the 
action  of  the  balance. 

If  the  choice  is  in  immediate  sequence  to  the  motive,  then  it 
must  be  in  instant  sequence — instant  either  to  the  sin-  an  instant 
gle  motive  or  to  the  stronger  or  strongest  at  any  given  effect. 
time.  If  the  motive  be  a  sufficient  cause  to  the  choice,  then,  from 
the  nature  of  the  mental  powers  concerned,  the  choice  must  be  an 
instant  effect.  Remove  the  support  of  a  weight  and  it  will  in- 
stantly begin  to  fall ;  but  it  has  space  through  which  to  fall,  and 
this  requires  time.  It  cannot  be  so  with  the  action  of  mind  in 
choice  if  motive  be  the  cause  of  its  action.  Here  there  can  be  no 
appreciable  time,  and  at  most  only  its  logical  conception.  What 
in  the  case  of  the  weight  is  only  an  instant  beginning,  in  such  men- 
tal action  must  be  an  instant  completion.  If  motive  be  a  cause  to 
the  choice  it  must  have  entire  sufficiency  for  the  effect.  Hence,  in 
such  a  case,  if  it  be  not  an  instant  cause  to  a  complete  effect  it  never 
can  cause  the  choice. 

The  immediate  and  instant  sequence  of  the  elective  decision  must 
involve  its  necessitation.  There  can  be  no  place  necessity  the 
for  any  counter-force  which  can  in  the  least  measure  coxseqcesce. 
control  the  causal  force  of  the  motive  or  modify  the  volitional  re- 
sult. There  is  no  time  for  the  intervention  of  reflection  and  judg- 
ment. Our  personal  agency  cannot  assert  itself  and  act  in  the 
case.  All  is  precluded  by  the  instant  sequence  of  the  choice  to  the 
motive  impulse.  Hence  the  resulting  volition  is  the  necessary  effect 
of  the  spontaneous  motive  state.  There  can  be  no  freedom  under 
such  a  law  of  choice.  Such  is  the  inevitable  result  of  placing 
choice  in  immediate  sequence  to  the  motive  state.     There  is  no 


286  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

place  for  personal  agency  under  such  an  order  of  the  mental  facts 
of  choice. 

4.  The  Facts  in  a  Complete  Analysis. — For  a  complete  analysis 
of  the  mental  facts  of  choice  we  require  the  addition  of  only  one 
to  those  previously  named,  but  it  is  well  here  to  present  all  in 
their  proper  order  and  with  a  fuller  treatment. 

For  any  choice  we  require  the  conception  of  an  end.  We  use 
the  term  end  in  a  sense  comprehensive  of  all  objects  of 
choice.  Choosing  is  choosing  something  :  it  may  be  a 
deed  of  charity  or  a  deed  of  fraud,  some  new  pleasure  or  new  form 
of  business,  a  good  life  or  an  evil  life.  Whatever  it  is  it  must  be 
mentally  apprehended  in  order  to  be  chosen.  Mere  instinct  may 
lead  to  its  end  without  any  mental  prevision,  as  when  a  bird  builds 
its  nest  or  a  beaver  its  dam,  but  rational  mind  cannot  so  move.  It 
must  take  into  thought  the  end  to  be  chosen.  This  preconception 
of  the  end  belongs  to  the  mental  facts  of  choice,  and  the  logical 
order  of  these  facts  must  assign  it  the  first  place. 

The  mind  must  be  in  a  motive  state  respecting  the  end  to  be 
chosen.  We  use  the  words  motive  state  in  a  sense 
comprehensive  of  all  forms  of  inducement  to  the  choice. 
There  must  be  some  form  of  elicited  interest  in  the  end  to  be 
chosen.  This  interest  may  arise  from  our  appetites  or  aifections, 
or  from  our  rational  or  moral  nature.  Only  in  some  form  of  con- 
scious interest  in  an  end  can  there  be  any  reason  for  its  choice.  But 
choice  is  a  rational  act,  and  therefore  impossible  without  a  reason. 
Hence  the  motive  state  which  embodies  this  reason  must  be  included 
among  the  mental  facts  of  choice,  and  the  logical  order  places  it 
second. 

If  personal  agency  is  a  reality,  the  elective  decision  must  imme- 
diately follow,  not  the  motive  state,  but  the  judgment 
respecting  the  eligibility  of  the  end.  This  judgment 
is  reached  through  proper  reflection.  Such  reflection  and  judgment 
are  necessary  to  a  proper  personal  agency  in  choice,  and  therefore 
necessary  to  choice  itself.  In  the  logical  order  of  the  mental  facts 
of  choice  the  rational  judgment  is  the  third. 

The  rational  judgment  does  not  include  the  elective  decision.  In 
ELECTIVE  DE-  ^^^^  light  of  consciousncss  the  mental  action  is  not  the 
cisioN.  same  in  the  two  cases.     In  the  judgment  we  estimate 

the  character  and  value  of  the  end,  while  in  the  elective  decision  we 
determine  our  action  respecting  its  attainment.  The  act  of  judg- 
ment is  complete  before  the  elective  decision  is  made.  The  judg- 
ment, however,  is  necessary  to  the  rational  character  of  the  choice, 
and  therefore  to  choice  itself,  which  in  the  very  nature  of  it  must 


FREE  AGENCY.  28V 

have  a  reason  for  itself.     Thus  in  a  scientific  order  of  tlie  mental 
facts  choice  immediately  follows  the  judgment. 

5.  lite  Facts  Conclusive  of  Freedom. — In  respect  to  the  question 
of  freedom,  the  difference  between  the  two  sets  of  men-  ^hk  two  sets 
tal  facts,  as  previously  given,  is  as  wide  and  deep  as  per-  of  facts. 
sonal  agency  itself.  In  the  former  analysis  there  is  no  place  for  this 
agency,  while  in  the  latter  it  has  full  place.  In  the  former  the  elec- 
tive decision  is  immediately  from  the  motive  state,  and  therefore 
under  a  law  of  necessity  ;  in  the  latter  it  is  directly  from  the  per- 
sonal agency.  In  this  agency  there  is  the  power  of  rational  self- 
action.  In  the  exercise  of  this  power  ends  and  motives  are  taken 
up  into  reflection  and  weighed  in  the  judgment.  The  choice  is 
made  in  the  light  of  prudence  or  duty.  It  is  a  personal  choice  in  the 
act.  As  personally  constituted,  we  have  the  power  of  latter. 
such  action.  There  is  freedom  in  such  action.  Thus  the  mental 
facts  of  choice,  as  given  in  a  complete  analysis,  conclude  for  free- 
dom. 


288  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
PBEEDOM  OF  CHOICE. 

I.  Katiozstality  of  Choice. 

1.  Motive  and  Choice. — Choice  is  a  rational  election  respecting 
Bome  end  or  ends.     It  is  rational  in  the  sense  that  it  is  for  a  reason 
mentally  apprehended  and  approved.     The  reason  so  apprehended 
and  approved  is  the  tnie  motive  of  the  choice.     There  - 

MOTIVE  NECES-  ^^ 

SARY  TO  can  be  no  choice  without  such  a  motive.     Hence  there 

CHOICE.  ^^^  i^g  ^^  lj,j^g  freedom  in  a  power  of  choosing  without 

motive.  There  is  no  such  power,  whatever  may  be  possible  in  the 
form  of  arbitrary  volitions.  Such  volitions  cannot  be  choices, 
because  the  necessary  motives  are  wanting.  The  supposition  that 
without  actual  motives  to  the  good,  or  with  our  stronger  motives 
CONCERNING  pei'sisteutly  holding  for  the  evil,  a  good  life  is  yet  practi- 
NATURAL  cable  through  choice,  is  utterly  groundless.  There  could 

ABILITY.  i^g  j^Q  choice  of  the  good  in  such  a  state.     The  assump- 

tion of  an  available  and  responsible  natural  ability  for  the  choice  of 
the  good  in  such  a  state  is  equally  groundless.  With  this  natural 
ability  is  placed  a  moral  inability ;  so  that  the  two  co-exist.  The 
latter  lies  definitely  in  an  incapacity  for  the  proper  motive  to  the 
choice  of  the  good.  If  the  alleged  natural  ability,  whatever  it  may 
be,  can  command  the  necessary  motives,  then  the  moral  inability 
does  not  exist ;  if  it  cannot,  then,  respecting  the  good,  it  can  be 
nothing  more  than  a  power  of  mere  arbitrary  volition,  and  therefore 
must  be  utterly  insufficient  for  the  choice  of  the  good.  No  such 
power,  however  great,  can  be  adequate  to  a  good  life  ;  for  such  a  life 
must  be  chosen  from  its  own  proper  motives. 

Thus  motives  stand  between  us  and  our  choices,  not,  indeed,  as 
MOTIVE  CONDI-  determining  forces,  because  in  our  personal  agency  we 
TioNs  CHOICE,  have  power  over  them,  but  as  conditioning  facts  of 
choice.  This  is  surely  the  case  within  the  moral  sj)here,  the  sphere 
in  which  centers  the  chief  interest  of  the  question  of  freedom. 
We  allege  the  necessity  of  rational  or  moral  motive,  not  to  mere 
volition,  but  to  volition  as  choice.  Many  of  our  motive  states  arise 
in  purely  spontaneous  appetence  or  impulse.  Strong  incentives  to 
evil  thus  arise.     This  is  clearly  the  case  with  many.     These  pas- 


FREEDOM  OF  CHOICE.  289 

Bionate  impulses  and  appetences  are  urgent  for  speedy  satisfaction, 
and  therefore  for  the  volitions  necessary  to  its  attainment.  Such 
volitions  are  inevitable  unless  we  can  restrain  the  evil  tendencies 
through  the  weightier  motives  of  reason  and  religion.  Have  we 
such  power  ?     This  is  a  vital  question  of  freedom. 

2.  Rational  Gliaracter  of  Choice. — As  choice  itself  is  rational,  so 
there  must  be  a  rational  element  in  its  motive.     A  mere 

.,.,..  MERE       APPE- 

appetence  or  incitement  in  the  sensibilities  possesses  no  tence  not  a 
such  quality  ;  therefore  it  cannot  be  the  proper  motive  "^^^^^^  ^'otive. 
of  choice.  Any  volition  which  it  may  directly  induce  is  merely 
executive,  not  elective.  Hunger  and  thirst  are  immediate  impulses 
toward  eating  and  drinking  ;  but  their  mere  satisfaction  is  not  the 
true  motive  of  self-government  in  the  case.  Otherwise  we  might 
always  eat  and  drink  just  according  to  our  appetence — whenever  it 
craves,  whatever  it  craves,  all  that  it  craves.  This  might  do  for  the 
life  of  an  animal,  but  could  not  answer  for  the  rational  life  of  a  man. 
Were  these  appetites  always  in  adjustment  to  our  good,  then  might 
we  always  follow  them,  but  only  for  that  reason,  and  therefore  for 
a  rational  motive.  Only  with  such  a  motive  can  there  be  self-gov- 
ernment through  choice. 

The  same  rule  applies  in  the  entire  circle  of  our  spontaneous 
affections.  Sympathy  is  usually  an  impulse  toward  the  law  fpr- 
some  voluntary  action,  but  not  in  itself  a  motive  from  '^"^'^  applied. 
which  we  may  act  with  choice.  Before  the  action  can  be  chosen 
the  end  of  it  must  be  approved  as  wise  or  good.  This  requires 
reflection  and  judgment  prior  to  the  choice.  Parental  affection,  fol- 
lowed simply  as  a  motive  impulse,  often  leads  astray  from  both  pru- 
dence and  duty.  The  proper  action  can  be  determined  only  through 
reflection  and  judgment.  Only  for  the  reason  thus  apprehended 
can  the  action  be  chosen.  The  quick  resentment  against  willful 
injury  is  an  instant  impulse  toward  the  infliction  of  injury  in 
return,  but  is  not  such  a  motive  in  itself  that  the  retaliation  can  be 
chosen.  Such  a  motive  could  arise  only  with  such  rea-  cqice  must 
son  or  reasons  as  the  moral  judgment  could  approve.  ^^  rational. 
Thus,  in  every  view  of  the  case,  choice  is  rational  in  itself,  and 
therefore  requires  a  rational  element  in  its  motive.  Hence  the 
volitions  which  spring  immediately  from  spontaneous  impulses  in 
the  sensibilities  are  not  choices,  but  purely  executive  volitions,  put 
forth  for  the  attainment  of  the  ends  of  such  impulses.  It  is  thus 
manifest  that  reflection  and  judgment  must  come  between  our 
motive  impulses  and  our  choices.  Only  thus  can  they  possess  the 
necessary  rational  quality. 

3.  Rational  Conduct  of  Life. — Our  life  is   conducted  through 


290  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

choice  only  in  the  use  of  our  rational  powers.  An  animal  has  mo- 
LAw  OF  ANi-  ti"^6  impulses  and  volitional  power ;  but  it  does  not 
MAL  LIFE.  choose  the  ends  of  its  volitions,  nor  can  it,  because  it  is 
without  the  faculties  for  their  rational  apprehension.  Its  volitions 
are  immediately  from  its  spontaneous  impulses.  The  operation  is 
without  reason.  Such  are  our  own  volitions  when  there  is  no 
exercise  of  reason  between  them  and  our  motive  impulses,  what- 
REAsoN  IN  6ver  their  end.  The  intervention  of  reason,  either  as 
HUMAN  LIFE,  intuitivcly  active  or  as  exercised  in  reflection  and  Judg- 
ment upon  end  and  motive,  is  the  one  fact  which  can  really  differ- 
entiate rational  agency  in  volition  from  the  operation  of  mere 
animal  impulse.  As  between  the  two,  there  are  widely  different 
powers,  different  ends,  different  motive  impulses  in  operation ;  but, 
on  the  omission  of  a  proper  use  of  our  rational  faculties,  mere  im- 
pulse is  equally  the  determining  law  of  volition  in  the  two  cases. 
Mind  thus  moves  in  the  sphere  of  the  animal  life.  Its  only  pos- 
sible movement  in  the  higher  sphere  of  a  true  personal  agency  is  by 
making  reason  the  law  of  its  choices. 

It  does  not  hence  follow  that  on  every  instance  of  a  new  motive 
LIFE  ACCORD-  impulse,  even  where  morality  is  concerned,  a  season  of 
iNG  TO  LAW.  reflection  is  necessary.  Life  does  not  thus  fall  into 
separate  deeds,  but  is  conducted  according  to  some  principle  or  law. 
A  good  life  must  be  conducted  on  moral  principles  or  in  obedience 
to  a  recognized  law  of  duty.  A  good  man  may  have  a  sudden 
impulse  toward  some  wrong  volition  or  deed,  but  reflection  and 
judgment  have  gone  before  and  settled  the  principle  to  which  his 
present  action  must  conform.  With  these  facts,  the  instant  appli- 
cation of  this  principle  answers  for  all  the  requirements  of  reason 
in  choice. 

Personal  agency  itself  is  a  nullity  if  without  power  over  our  mo- 
tives and  volitions.     We  have  no  such  power  unless  we 

POWER  OF  ^     ^ 

PERSONAL  can  subject  them  to  reflection  and  judgment.  In  no 
AGENCY.  other  way  can  life  be  conducted  through  choice.     There 

can  be  no  other  rational  self-government.  The  only  alternative 
must  be  a  succession  of  volitions  and  deeds  in  immediate  and 
necessary  sequence  to  our  stronger  spontaneous  impulses.  In  any 
motive  state  other  impulses  may  arise  to  influence  a  pending  voli- 
tion or  deed ;  but,  unless  responsive  to  the  call  of  our  personal 
agency  and  subject  to  its  control,  they  must  be  powerless  to  release 
us  from  the  absolute  domination  of  our  spontaneous  impulses.  If 
there  is  no  place  for  reflection  and  judgment  between  the  motive 
impulse  and  the  volition  which  it  determines,  no  life  can  be  ration- 
ally conducted  through  choice. 


FREEDOM  OF  CHOICE.  291 

II.  Rational  Suspension  of  Choice. 

1,  Meaning  of  Rational  Suspension. — Choice,  with  all  volition 
toward  the  attainment  of  the  motive  end,  may  be  suspended 
when  we  are  under  motive  influence.  The  suspension  is  rational 
when  for  the  purpose  of  reflection  and  judgment  upon  end  and 
motive,  that  the  election  may  be  prudent,  or  wise,  or  responsive 
to  duty. 

What  is  rational  agency,  or  what  can  it  avail  for  the  higher  ends 
of  life,  if,  under  the  laws  of  mental  action,  there  be  no  jj^-cggg^y  ^o 
place  for  the  proper  use  of  its  powers?  Where  can  this  personal 
use  be  so  important  as  in  the  control  of  mental  states 
which  vitally  concern  the  power  of  self-government?  Life  is  worthy 
of  man  only  as  it  proceeds  from  his  personal  agency.  As  such,  it 
must  be  rationally  chosen.  Our  choices  are  our  most  important 
volitions.  Through  them  we  determine  the  ends  of  our  life  and  the 
deeds  for  their  attainment.  But  if  there  be  no  power  of  suspend- 
ing choice  when  under  motive  influence  there  can  be  no  place  for 
the  reflection  and  judgment  necessary  to  rational  self-government. 
Our  spontaneous  impulses  must  be  the  immediate  causes  of  our  voli- 
tions. Hence,  the  power  of  rationally  suspending  choice,  with  all 
volition  toward  the  attainment  of  the  motive  end,  is  necessary  to 
choice  itself,  and  the  proper  use  of  it  a  necessary  mode  of  conduct- 
ing life  rationally. 

2.  Omissions  of  the  Suspension. — In  the  habits  of  human  life 
many  omit  this  suspension,  and  mostly  act  immediately  from  spon- 
taneous impulse.  They  do  this  when  the  conduct  is  profoundly 
important,  morally  responsible  even,  and  the  call  loud  and  urgent 
for  the  most  deliberate  action.  Their  conduct  is  simply  executed, 
not  chosen.  This  is  possible,  though  not  consistent  omissions 
with  the  proper  use  of  our  rational  powers.  These  possible. 
powers  are  not  self-acting,  but  simply  an  investment  which  as  per- 
sonal agents  we  may  and  should  use.  If  self-acting  they  could  not 
be  the  powers  of  a  proper  rational  and  moral  agency.  Without 
their  use  our  life  is  not  from  our  own  agency.  Without  their  posses- 
sion we  are  incapable  of  choosing  our  life  or  of  conducting  it  ration- 
ally and  morally.  The  fact  that  many  live  with  little  reflection  or 
rational  self-control,  and  act  merely  from  the  impulses  of  spontane- 
ous appetence  or  desire,  is  often  alleged  in  their  reprehension.  They 
should  not  be  reprehended  if  without  the  power  of  postponing  all 
volition  toward  the  end  of  their  appetences  when  under  such  influ- 
ences ;  for  if  without  this  power  they  are  utterly  incapable  of 
conducting  life  rationally. 


292  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

3.  Power  of  Suspension  Manifest. — It  is  a  fact  that  often  under 
ACTUAL  scs-  motive  influence  all  volition  toward  the  end  is  deferred 
PENSION.  and  held  under  deliberation.  How  shall  the  fact  be 
explained  ?  On  a  denial  of  rational  deferment  there  are  only  two 
modes  in  which  an  explanation  can  even  be  attempted.  One  is  to 
NOT  FROM  IN-  accouut  thc  delay  to  a  mental  state  of  indifference.  But 
DIFFERENCE,  thls  Is  inadmissiblc,  because  the  motive  state  is  manifest 
in  the  deliberation.  No  one  deliberates  on  questions  of  indifference 
in  order  to  a  judicious  election.  The  other  is  to  account  the  delay 
to  an  exact  balance  of  opposing  motive  influences.  Such  a  state 
would  be  practically  the  same  as  a  state  of  indifference,  though 
psychologically  different.  The  view  is  hypothetically  admissible  on 
the  theory  that  volition  or  choice  is  absolutely  determined  by  mo- 
tive force.  On  the  denial  of  rational  deferment  motive  influences 
are  the  only  forces  practically  operative  in  the  mind.  There  is 
an  impulse  toward  a  given  volition  or  choice ;  and  the  only  force 
which  can  prevent  this  result  is  a  counter  impulse.  Hence,  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  delay  requires  for  all  that  time  an  exact  balance  of 
opposing  motive  forces.  The  slightest  preponderance  of  either 
would  at  once  determine  the  volitional  result,  just  as  the  heavier 
weight  immediately  preponderates  the  scale.  Is  this,  then,  "& 
ONLY  RATION-  Tatloual  account  of  the  case  ?  The  mental  state  of 
AL  ACCOUNT,  interested  deferment  runs  through  hours  and  days, 
sometimes  through  months  and  even  years.  Can  the  fact  be  ex- 
plained simply  as  the  result  of  an  exact  balance  of  opposing  motive 
forces  ?  Such  is  the  only  possible  account,  if  we  deny  the  power  of 
rational  deferment.  Its  utter  insufficiency  concludes  the  reality 
of  this  power. 

4.  Only  Account  of  Nolle  Lives. — The  denial  of  this  power 
involves  the  assumption  that  all  great  and  worthy  lives  in  the  vari- 
ous spheres  of  human  activity  and  achievement,  in  science  and 
ACCOUNT  OF  philosophy,  in  statesmanship  and  patriotism,  in  philan- 
sucH  LIVES.  thropy  and  piety,  are  the  formation  of  volitions  in 
immediate  sequence  to  motive  impulses  or  tendencies,  and  without 
any  power  of  personal  agency  in  the  proper  choice  of  ends ;  that 
all  the  truer  and  nobler  lives  wrought  in  patience  and  self-denial,  in 
an  ever-enduring  fortitude  and  the  loftiest  moral  heroism,  are  thus 
formed.  But  no  true  philosophy  of  such  lives  is  possible  with  the 
notion  that  they  are  the  creation  of  purely  spontaneous  motive 
forces,  no  one  of  which,  as  it  may  be  the  stronger,  will  submit  to 
ONLY  TRUE  ^'^Y  Tcstraiut  or  delay  under  the  immediate  power  of 
ACCOUNT.  personal  agency,  but  must  of  its  own  force  go  at  once 
to  the  volitional  result  of  its  own  impulsion.     In  truth,  reflection 


FREEDOM  OF  CHOICE.  293 

must  be  the  habit,  and  the  highest  practical  reason  the  guide,  of 
every  such  life.  Its  formation  is  possible  only  as  the  spontaneous 
impulses  may  be  subject  to  the  personal  agency.  Over  all  the 
exigences  of  weakness  and  trial  and  wrong  tendency  this  agency 
must  be  sovereign,  and  have  in  command  the  weightier  motives  of 
reason  and  conscience,  which  may  ever  re-enforce  the  high  purposes 
of  a  great  and  good  life.  Hence,  the  power  of  rationally  suspend- 
ing all  volition  toward  a  motive  end,  when  under  the  motive  influ- 
ence, must  be  a  power  of  personal  agency.  The  philosophy  of 
every  great  and  good  life  is  a  conclusive  witness  to  its  reality. 

III.  Immediate  Power  of  Suspension. 

1.  Denial  of  the  Power. — We  here  face  the  chief  objection  to 
this  vital  law  of  freedom  in  choice.  It  is  very  easy  chief  objec- 
to  affirm  that  the  position  maintained  gives  no  release  "*''*• 
either  from  an  absolute  dependence  upon  motive  or  from  its  deter- 
mining influence  upon  our  volitions.  But  most  that  may  be  thus 
said  must  be  mere  assertion,  without  possible  verification  in  the 
facts  of  psychology  or  the  laws  of  mind.  Such  assertion  may  be 
met  with  counter  assertion  equally  broad  and  plausible.  So  far,  if 
nothing  is  gained,  neither  is  any  thing  lost.  However,  we  shall  not 
thus  rest  the  question,  but  maintain  our  position  on  the  ground  of 
both  psychology  and  a  true  personal  agency.  The  result  will  give 
us  the  rational  suspension  of  choice,  not  as  choice,  but  as  immedi- 
ately from  our  personal  agency. 

The  contrary  assumption  is  that  the  suspension  of  all  volition 
toward  the  end  of  any  motive  impulse  for  the  purpose  ^^^  suspe.k- 
of  reflection  and  judgment  must  itself  be  a  choice,  sign  not 
Some  reason  operative  as  a  motive  to  the  suspension  is  ^"°'^^- 
necessary  to  its  rationality.  If  a  sufficient  motive  be  present  to  the 
mind  it  must  pause  and  reflect.  Such  are  the  plausible  assertions 
in  the  case.  Their  meaning  is  that  any  rational  deferment  of  elect- 
ive or  executive  volition,  with  all  the  intervening  rational  action, 
is  absolutely  dependent  upon  motive  and  necessarily  determined 
according  to  its  stronger  impulse.  On  the  truth  of  this  assump- 
tion the  mind,  when  under  motive  impulse,  cannot  pause  and  reflect, 
nor  take  account  of  any  relative  fact  or  principle  which  might  in- 
fluence the  pending  volition,  except  another  motive  intervene  to 
determine  the  rational  action.  But  such  motive  must  be  assumed 
to  arise  spontaneously,  if  at  all.  There  can  be  no  delay  and  no 
casting  about  for  any  reason  counter  to  the  present  inclination, 
simply  as  the  rational  action  of  the  personal  agent.  If  so  condi- 
tioned by  spontaneous  motive  influence,  why  should  he,  or  how  can 
21 


294  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

he,  pause  and  reflect  whether  there  be  any  reason  against  following 
a  present  inclination,  except  some  spontaneous  impulse  so  deter- 
mine his  mental  action? 

2.  A  Denial  of  Personal  Agency. — If  such  be  the  law  of  mental 
action  in  this  case,  our  volitions  are  not  in  any  true  sense  from  our 
NECESSARY  owu  agcucy,  but  are  immediately  determined  by  our 
^"^ONAL*^  purely  spontaneous  motive  states.  Indeed,  the  mind  is 
AGENCY.  no  longer  a  rational  agent,  because  without  the  power 

of  rational  action.  The  fact  is  not  other  because  some  spontaneous 
impulse,  opportunely  arising,  may  determine  the  mind  to  pause,  or 
even  turn  it  away  to  reflection  and  the  apprehension  of  reasons 
counter  to  the  present  inclination.  There  is  still  wanting  the  essen- 
tial power  of  rational  self -movement.  The  mind  cannot  act  from 
itself  as  a  rational  agent,  but  is  absolutely  conditioned  by  its  spon- 
taneous impulses.  The  irrational  soul  of  an  animal  is  not  more 
dependent  upon  the  impulse  of  instinct,  or  passive  under  its  domi- 
nance. That  the  mental  movement  determined  by  the  spontaneous 
motive  is  to  reflection  and  the  apprehension  of  reasons  counter  to 
the  present  inclination  brings  no  relief,  because  even  in  such  facts 
the  mind  is  none  the  less  dependent  upon  the  spontaneous  motive 
or  passive  under  its  power.  This  is  the  fact  of  uecessitation  in  the 
case,  and  the  fact  excliisive  of  a  true  rational  agency,  whatever  the 
mental  action  induced. 

Thus  a  proper  rational  agency  is  excluded.  There  is  something 
far  higher  and  other  in  such  agency  than  is  possible 
AGENCY  under  a  law  of  absolute  dependence  upon  purely  spon- 

ExcLUDED.  taneous  motives.  It  consists  in  an  intrinsic  power  of 
immediate  self -movement,  a  power  to  pause  and  reflect  when  under 
the  impulse  of  motive,  a  power  whereby  the  mind  may  turn  itself 
to  such  facts  or  principles  as  may  concern  the  present  inclination, 
or  call  them  up  and  hold  them  under  deliberation.  For  all  this 
there  is  required  no  other  power  or  reason  than  what  is  ever  at  the 
command  of  a  rational  agent,  so  long  as  his  proper  agency  remains. 
But  an  absolute  dependence  upon  spontaneous  motive  impulse  for 
any  reflection  or  judgment,  while  under  such  impulse,  utterly  pre- 
cludes this  power,  and  leaves  us  to  be  driven  helplessly  onward  in 
an  endless  succession  of  motive  states,  while  our  volitions  are  as 
determinately  swayed  by  these  states  as  are  the  orbital  movements 
NO  POWER  ^^  ^^®  planets  by  the  forces  of  gravitation.  We  have  no 
OVER  MOTIVE  powcr  ovcr  such  states ;  no  power  against  them,  or  to 
STATES.  modify  them  ;  and,  therefore,  no  power  to  avoid  or  in 

the  least  modify  any  volition  which  they  may  induce ;  but  if  we 
have  not  such  power  we  have  no  true  rational  agency ;  it  is  really 


FREEDOM  OF  CHOICE.  095 

and  utterly  excluded.  Now  auy  position  which  denies  to  personal 
mind  such  an  agency,  or  any  power  necessary  to  it,  must  be  a  false 
position.  Hence  rational  agency  is,  and  must  be,  independent  of 
spontaneous  impulses  for  its  rational  action  when  under  motive 
influence. 

The  rational  deferment  of  all  volition  toward  the  motive  end 
when  under  motive  impulse  is,  as  previously  stated,  for  purpose  or 
the  purpose  of  reflection  and  judgment  upon  impulse  dkfkrmknt. 
and  end,  that  the  action  in  the  case  may  be  judicious  or  wise.  It 
is  the  proper  course  for  an  agent  rationally  constituted  and  respon- 
sible for  his  volitions.  Often  the  instant  application  of  a  principle 
previously  settled  may  answer  for  the  law  of  rational  conduct.  In 
many  cases  the  proper  action  may  be  intuitively  or  instantly  clear. 
But  when  it  is  not  clear,  as  often  it  is  not,  our  conduct  is  rational 
only  as  we  take  time  and  give  the  question  such  reflection  as  may 
be  requisite  to  a  proper  judgment. 

3.  Suspension  of  Choice  not  Choice. — This  deferment  is  not 
choice.  The  mental  action  is  not  the  same  in  the  two  cases.  The 
question  may  be  appealed  to  consciousness  or  tested  by  appeal  to 
the  most  searching  analysis  of  all  the  mental  facts  con-  consciocs- 
cerned,  and  the  result  will  verify  our  position.  Choice  ^^"^^ 
has  its  own  mental  form,  well  known  in  consciousness,  but  really 
known  only  there.  Simply  as  an  elective  volition  it  is  the  act  of  an 
instant.  The  pre-elective  rational  action  is  of  the  choice  simply  as 
the  prerequisite  of  its  rational  quality.  Yet  the  relation  is  vital  to 
choice  itself.  But  in  no  sense  do  our  views  identify  the  one  with 
the  other  as  mental  acts.  They  are  not  the  same.  In  the  light  of 
consciousness  they  are  distinct  and  different. 

4.  The  Immediate  Poiuer  Manifest. — Consciousness  is  witness  to 
the  fact  that  this  pre-elective  rational  action  is  immediately  from 
the  rational  agency  itself.  The  power  so  to  act  is  intrinsic  and  neces- 
sary to  such  agency.  It  is  an  ever-usable  power  so  long  an  EVER-rs.*.- 
a«  the  agency  remains.  "VVe  assert  only  the  same  truth  ^^^  power. 
when  we  affirm  that  a  rational  agent  can  act  rationally.  With  this 
true  and  simple  statement,  our  position  scarcely  requires  illustra- 
tion or  proof ;  for  to  admit  the  reality  of  such  an  agency,  and 
then  deny  its  necessary  power,  is  a  contradiction.  Who  would  at- 
tempt a  philosophy  of  choice  or  pretend  to  build  up  a  doctrine  of 
responsible  freedom  on  the  denial  of  a  true  rational  agency  to  the 
mind  ?  But  with  the  admission  of  this  agency  it  must  be  admit- 
ted that  the  mind  can  act  rationally.  Hence  it  must  have  the 
power  of  so  acting  immediately  from  itself. 

Objections  may  be  urged  against  the  reality  of  this  power  in 


296  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

view  of  the  blindness  of  ignorance,  the  perversion  of  error,  the  en- 
GRouNDLEss  crvation  of  vice,  the  thralldom  of  evil  habit ;  but  these 
OBJECTIONS.  are  incidental  questions  or  side  issues  which  in  no  sense 
antagonize  our  position.  There  are  such  instances,  as  many  facts 
witness.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  rational  agency  may  be  greatly 
enfeebled,  or,  possibly,  entirely  overborne,  by  the  force  of  evil  habit 
and  vicious  tendency  ;  but  this  does  not  affect  our  position,  for  it 
is  affirmed  of  a  true  rational  agency,  and  not  of  a  mind  in  such  a 
state  of  thralldom  from  a  wrong  use  of  its  powers  that  its  proper 
agency  no  longer  remains.  There  are  results  of  benefit  to  freedom 
from  proper  rational  and  moral  conduct,  as  well  as  results  of  evil 
from  wrong  conduct.  By  a  right  use  of  the  powers  of  our  personal 
agency — a  use  just  according  to  its  constitution  and  our  own  obliga- 
tion— we  may  reach  the  highest  measure  of  self-command  and  moral 
freedom. 

We  are  not  constantly  in  some  special  motive  state,  or  under  some 
HOURS  FOR  RE-  stroug  Impulsc,  urgent  for  the  volition  which  will 
FLECTION.  carry  us  to  its  end.  In  the  hours  of  mental  quietude 
and  self-command,  duty  in  all  its  relations  and  requirements  may 
be  calmly  considered  and  rules  of  right  conduct  settled.  AVe  may 
thus  give  to  the  purpose  of  a  reflective  and  upright  life  the  strength 
and  persistence  of  habit.  We  may  so  make  it  a  law  of  life  always 
to  pause  and  reflect  under  any  doubtful  solicitation,  that  this  law 
shall  become  an  immanent  state  of  our  mind.  It  will  thus  be  easy 
for  us,  even  when  suddenly  brought  under  strong  impulse  or  temp- 
tation, to  pause  and  reflect  and  so  take  to  ourselves  strength  from 
the  weightiest  reason  against  the  wrong  action  to  which  we  may  be 
solicited.  For  so  doing  we  need  only  the  power  which  is  intrinsic 
to  rational  agency. 

Thus  the  proper  rational  action  when  under  motive  impulse,  the 
IMMEDIATE  Tcflection  and  judgment  upon  end  and  impulse  which 
POWER.  should  precede  any  volition  toward  the  end,  and  must 

precede  it  if  life  is  to  be  conducted  rationally,  is  from  an  immediate 
power  of  rational  self-action.  The  denial  of  this  power  is  the  denial 
of  rational  agency  itself.  Logically,  the  consequence  must  be  a 
helpless  passivity  of  life  under  an  absolute  law  of  purely  spontane- 
ous motive  impulse. 

IV.  Power  over  Motives. 

With  an  immediate  power  to  postpone  all  volition  toward  any 
motive  end,  and  to  take  end  and  motive  into  reflection  and  judg- 
ment, we  have  power  over  our  motives.  Power  over  motives  is 
power  over  choices.     Power  over  choices  is  true  freedom  in  choice. 


FREEDO^r  OF  CHOICE.  297 

An  analytic  presentation  of  the  laws  and  facts  of  mind  with  which 
this  power  is  vitally  concerned  will  evince  its  reality,  analytic 
and  also  conclude  its  sufficiency  as  a  law  of  freedom  in  statkmknt. 
choice.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  to  treat,  severally  and  in  order, 
motive  states  of  mind,  laws  of  motive  states,  power  over  laws  of 
motive  states,  power  over  motive  states  and  motives. 

1.  Motive  States  of  Mind. — Any  form  of  conscious  interest  oper- 
ative as  an  incentive  toward  any  volition  in  order  to  the  attainment 
of  an  end  is  a  motive  state.  The  fact  is  the  same  whether  the  inter- 
est arises  in  any  one  of  our  manifold  sensibilities  or  in  the  rational 
or  moral  part  of  our  nature.  There  is  no  motive  state  without 
some  form  of  conscious  interest  in  some  object  or  end. 

2.  Laios  of  Motive  States. — There  are  certain  laws  of  motive 
states.  The  same  laws  are  common  to  all  such  states.  Their  place 
and  value  in  the  question  of  freedom  will  appear  as  we  proceed  with 
the  discussion. 

Motive  states  of  mind  are  under  a  law  of  objective  relation.  They 
can  possess  no  motive  quality  except  on  the  cognitive 
view  of  their  object  or  end.  There  are  purely  sponta- 
neous appetences,  which  spring  from  our  constitution,  and  would 
spring  all  the  same  were  we  without  any  notion  of  objects  which 
might  satisfy  them.  But  in  such  case  they  could  not,  in  any  proper 
flense,  be  motive  states,  because  without  tendency  toward  any  voli- 
tion or  deed  in  order  to  their  satisfaction.  Such  a  tendency  is  im- 
possible without  the  notion  of  something  satisfying.  The  same 
law  applies  to  truths  or  conceptions  of  the  reason,  whether  philo- 
sophic, moral,  or  religious.  Such  truths,  however  ideal  or  imper- 
sonal as  conceived,  are  often  truths  of  the  profoundest  conscious 
interest  and  the  most  forceful  .practical  tendency,  but  only  with  the 
notion  of  some  end  to  be  achieved.  All  objective  motivity  is  pow- 
erless over  the  subjective  in  any  practical  sense,  except  as  in  mental 
conception  and  with  the  notion  of  an  end.  Such  is  one  law  of 
motive  states  of  mind. 

Motive  states  are  spontaneous  on  their  proper  objective  relation. 
With  a  subjective  and  objective  motivity  in  correlation, 

,  .  •  P     ^  I-  t    •        L       SECOND   LAW. 

then  on  the  perception  or  conception  of  the  motive  object 
there  arises  an  impulse  or  tendency  toward  some  volition  or  deed 
answering  to  the  motive  state.  Thus  the  sense  of  hunger  and  thirst, 
with  the  notion  of  food  and  water,  immediately  tends  toward  eating 
and  drinking.  The  sense  of  moral  obligation  and  responsibility, 
with  the  notion  of  some  deed  required  as  a  duty,  becomes  an  impulse 
toward  its  performance.  The  principle  is  the  same  in  all  forms  of 
conscious  interest  in  motive  ends,  whether  of  the  sensibilities  or  the 
21 


298  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

reason.  Thus  motive  states  spontaneously  arise  and  remain  with 
the  proper  conception  of  their  objects  or  ends.  We  have  no  immei- 
diate  will-power  either  to  prevent  or  repress  them.  They  are  neces- 
sary facts  under  their  own  law.  This  is  no  concession  to  the  theory 
of  the  domination  of  motive  over  volition  or  choice.  Our  position 
is  not  broadly  that  we  have  no  volitional  power  over  these  motive 
states,  either  to  prevent  or  repress  or  change  them,  but  qualifiedly 
that  we  have  no  such  immediate  power.  This  is  because  they  are 
spontaneous  and  necessary  states  under  their  own  law.  That  they 
are  such  will  be  found  wholly  to  the  advantage  of  a  true  freedom  in 
choice. 

The  third  law  of  motive  states  is  not  so  much  a  distinct  law  as  a 
special  fact  of  such  states  consequent  on  the  first  law. 
If  motive  states  are  under  a  law  of  objective  relation^ 
and  possible  only  on  the  mental  conception  of  their  proper  object  or 
end,  then  by  consequence  they  must  terminate  with  this  condition- 
ing relation.  So  soon  as  the  motive  object  or  end  of  these  states 
is  dismissed  from  thought  they  must  cease  to  have  any  motive  qual- 
ity or  tendency. 

3.  Poioer  over  the  Laws  of  Motive  States. — Power  over  the  laws 
THE  POWER  of  motive  states  is  simply  power  over  the  practical  rela- 
sTATED.  tion  of  the  mind  to  motive  objects.     If  a  present  object 

must,  of  its  own  nature  and  force,  so  occupy  the  mind  and  fix  the 
attention  that  we  can  neither  dismiss  it  nor  call  into  thought  and 
reflection  any  other,  we  have  no  power  to  determine  the  relation  of 
our  mind  to  such  objects ;  but  if  we  can  dismiss  a  present  object. 
or  replace  it  in  the  mind  with  another,  or  call  another  into  thought 
and  reflection,  then  the  power  is  real  and  sufficient.  Have  we  such 
a  power?  This  is  really  the  question,  whether,  as  rational  agents, 
we  can  use  our  mental  faculties  according  to  their  own  nature  and 
office.  But,  as  correctly  so  stated,  the  question  determines  for  itself 
an  affirmative  answer. 

Rational  agency  requires  a  certain  complex  of  usable  faculties. 
There  must  be  a  synthesis  of  rational  intelligence,  sen- 

vOMPI^K^    OF  *^ 

USABLE  FAc-  sibillty,  and  will.  Of  course  there  can  be  no  such 
TLTiEs.  agency  Avithout  intelligence.     Sensibility  is  necessary  to 

a  conscious  interest  in  the  ends  of  action.  Without  such  interest 
there  could  be  no  personal  action ;  all  possible  action  would  be 
purely  spontaneous  or  automatic.  Neither  angel  nor  archangel,- 
however  removed  from  the  lower  forms  of  human  sensibility,  nor 
even  God  himself,  could  be  a  rational  agent  without  a  capacity  for 
conscious  interest  in  the  ends  of  volition  or  choice.  There  must 
be  such  an  interest  if  only  in  the  purest  philosophic  or  moral  reason. 


FREEDOM  OF  CHOICE.  099 

Of  course  there  must  be  a  will,  without  which  there  is  no  proper 
agency,  much  less  rational  agency. 

Man  is  a  rational  agent  with  these  three  forms  of  attribute.  But 
the  intelligence  is  not  the  agent ;  the  sensibility  or  emo-  ^^^^  ^^^^.^  ^ 
tional  nature  is  not  the  agent;  the  will  is  not  the  agent,  rational 
Man  himself,  as  so  constituted,  is  the  agent.  He  is  a  '^"'^■''■^• 
rational  agent  because  with  such  faculties  he  can  act  rationally. 
While  a  rational  agent  only  by  virtue  of  these  faculties,  yet  is  he 
above  them  with  power  to  use  them.  They  have  in  relation  to  him 
an  instrumental  quality  and  function,  and  he  can  use  them  for  their 
appropriate  ends,  just  as  he  may  use  any  bodily  organ  or  any  imple- 
ment or  tool.  Mental  faculties,  in  the  very  nature  of  them,  are  usa- 
ble faculties.  AVithout  the  power  of  using  them  the  proper  notion 
of  rational  agency  is  utterly  excluded. 

The  will,  as  a  usable  faculty,  is  most  proximate  to  the  agent,  and 
is  immediately  at  his  command.  This  does  not  imply 
an  absolute  power  of  volition  any  more  than  my  volun- 
tary use  of  a  pen  in  this  writing  implies  an  absolute  will  power  over 
it.  Volition,  in  the  lowest  sense,  is  conditioned  by  some  spontane- 
ous mental  state  ;  as  merely  for  the  attainment  of  the  end  of  some 
appetence  or  impulse,  by  the  notion  of  the  end  ;  as  elective,  by  the 
apprehension  of  a  reason  for  the  choice.  But  nothing  so  con- 
ditioning volition  is  inconsistent  with  an  immediate  power  of  the 
agent  over  the  will.  On  the  proper  occasion  he  may  so  use  it,  and 
through  volition  control  or  use  whatever  is  subject  to  him  as  an 
agent. 

Thus  he  may  use  his  intellectual  faculties.  Thinking  is  often 
spontaneous,  or,  at  least,  not  consciously  voluntar3\  It  ^.gj.  qj,  the 
is  none  the  less  true  that  through  the  will  we  have  the  intellect. 
voluntary  control  of  our  mental  faculties  and  may  freely  use  them 
according  to  their  own  nature  and  oflSce.  Thus  we  may  select  the 
subject  of  thought  and  give  it  conscious  attention  and  profound 
study.  We  may  dismiss  one  subject  and  take  up  another.  Every 
rational  agent  can  do  this ;  every  one  who  .conducts  life  rationally 
must  do  it.  The  question  of  this  power  may  be  appealed  to  the  facts 
of  consciousness,  and  they  will  verify  its  reality.  The  testimony  of 
achievements  of  rational  thought  conclude  the  case,  achieve- 
There  are  only  two  modes  of  mental  activity:  one  sponta- 
neous, the  other  by  intentional  origination  and  direction.  Will  the 
former  answer  for  a  philosophy  of  thought,  as  manifest  in  human 
history?  Is  not  the  latter  a  necessity  to  that  philosophy?  Whence 
the  civilizations  of  the  race?  Whence  the  facts  of  the  higher  civil- 
izations, the  arts  and  inventions,  the  sciences  and  philosophies,  the 


300  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

literature,  the  high  achievements  in  the  sphere  of  aesthetic  art,  the 
masterly  statesmanship  ?  Not  from  spontaneous  mental  reverie, 
but  from  the  voluntary  use  of  mental  faculties.  These  marvelous 
achievements  were  possible  only  as  men  could  freely  determine  their 
mental  activities.  This  is  conclusive  of  the  power  which  we  main- 
tain. 

With  such  a  power  in  the  use  of  our  mental  faculties  we  can 
POWER  OVER  direct  attention  and  thought  to  one  object  or  another, 
FACULTIES.  or  dismiss  one  and  call  up  another.  Thus  we  can  deter- 
mine the  relations  of  our  mind  to  motive  objects;  whether  a  present 
object  shall  hold  its  place  and  engage  the  entire  attention,  or  what 
other  shall  come  into  attention  with  it  or  entirely  replace  it;  whether 
one  object  or  another  shall  be  in  the  mental  apprehension,  with  its 
immediate  power  over  the  subjective  motivity. 

But  in  these  very  relations  are  the  laws  of  our  motive  states. 
„„  Hence,  power  over  these  relations  is  power  over  the  laws 

POWER  OVER  \^  ^ 

MOTIVE  of  motive  states,  and,  therefore,  over  these  states.    With 

STATES.  ^  motive  object  in  conception  there  is  a  spontaneous 

motive  state  in  correlation  with  it ;  with  a  dismission  of  the  object 
from  thought,  a  termination  of  the  motive  state;  with  its  replace- 
ment by  a  different  object,  a  change  in  the  motive  state.  Thus, 
with  power  over  the  relations  of  our  mind  to  motive  objects,  we  can 
determine  our  own  motive  states.  The  result  is  just  according  to 
the  laws  of  these  states.  Such  a  power  we  have,  however  meta- 
physical speculation  and  subtlety  may  seek  or  even  seem  to  obscure 
it.  The  power  itself  is  intrinsic  to  personal  agency,  original  and 
simple,  indefinable  and  inexplicable,  yet  none  the  less  real  and 
manifest. 

Any  one  may  readily  test  and  verify  the  reality  of  this  power. 
THE  POWER  Some  motive  object  comes  into  your  perception  or  men- 
READiLT  tal  conception.     It  matters  not  how  it  comes,  but  only 

TESTED.  ^j^^^  -^  lg  there.     Being  there,  it  moves  upon  the  corre- 

late appetence  or  affection,  and  draws  you  into  a  motive  state.  This 
state,  spontaneously  arising  under  its  own  law,  is  itself  an  impulse 
toward  some  volition  or  deed  for  the  attainment  of  the  motive  ob- 
ject, or  the  satisfaction  of  the  appetence  or  affection  which  it  has 
awakened;  but  no  law  of  your  mind  binds  you  to  this  state  or  to  any 
THE  POWER  volition  or  deed  toward  which  it  may  tend.  You  can 
SHOWN.  separate  yourself  from  the  motive  object  or  dismiss  it 

from  thought,  and  thus  put  it  out  of  the  relation  to  your  mind  which 
is  necessary  to  its  motive  influence  ;  or  you  can  take  into  thought  and 
reflection  some  fact  or  truth  of  counter  motive  influence,  and  the 
former  will  yield  to  the  latter.     You  may  suddenly  become  the  sub- 


FREEDOM  OF  CHOICE.  30! 

ject  of  a  spontaneous  impulse  or  tendency  which  you  would  not  fol- 
low. Your  state  of  mind  against  it  may  be  simply  a  cool  judgment, 
while  the  motive  state  is  full  of  fiery  impulse  ;  but,  however  intense 
the  impulse  or  cool  the  judgment,  you  can  take  time  to  reflect.  This 
you  can  do  as  a  rational  and  responsible  agent.  Then  you  can  summon 
into  thought  and  conscience  the  weighty  reasons  of  prudence  and 
piety  against  the  indulgence  of  the  present  impulse.  These  reasons, 
eo  apprehended  and  meditated,  will  give  you  a  counter  motive  state. 
This  state  may  have  far  less  intensity  than  the  former,  and  yet  be 
infinitely  weightier  in  the  view  of  reason  and  conscience.  rkspectino 
You  are  called  to  some  duty.  Your  mental  apprehen-  some  dcity. 
sion  of  it  may  be  lacking  in  clearness  and  vigor,  while  there  is  but 
slight  response  of  moral  feeling.  Other  feelings  may  be  strongly 
adverse.  In  this  state  you  can  take  time  and  call  into  meditation 
the  weighty  reasons  of  obligation  and  spiritual  well-being  which 
urge  the  duty.  These  reasons,  so  meditated,  will  bring  the  respon- 
sive disposition. 

4.  Poiuer  over  Motives. — We  thus  have  power  over  motives.     As 
motive  is   something  more   than  a  mere  spontaneous 

,  ,    .  MOTIVES   r.v- 

appetence  or  impulse,  and  includes  a  rational  element,  der  same 
power  over  motives  is  more  than  power  over  mere  motive  ^^^^' 
states.  Yet  the  laws  are  the  same  in  the  two  cases.  Both  classes 
are  spontaneous  under  the  same  law  of  objective  relation.  This 
relation  is  determined  for  both  simply  by  taking  the  motive  object 
into  proper  mental  apprehension.  As  we  thus  apprehend  a  rational 
or  moral  motive  object  we  realize  in  experience  a  rational  or  moral 
motive.  Through  such  higher  and  more  imperative  motives  we 
have  power  over  the  lower  appetites  and  desires.  We  are  free,  or 
have  the  power  of  freedom,  from  a  dominating  law  of  spontaneous 
appetence  or  impulsive  passion.  A  far  higher  and  better  life  must 
be  within  our  power  as  rational  and  moral  agents. 

If  without  power  over  motive  states,  and  over  motives  as  requisite 
to  the  choice  of  the  rational  and  the  good,  our  life  must  pj.j,tral  pow- 
be  spontaneous  and  flow  with  the  current  of  our  lower  eroffree- 
tendencies  ;  while  with  this  power  we  may  subject  it  to  ^^^' 
rational  and  moral  control.  Over  the  impulsions  of  appetite  and 
passion  we  may  enthrone  the  rational  and  the  moral.  How  this  may 
be  done  has  already  been  explained.  We  are  not  helplessly  passive 
under  any  one  spontaneous  impulse  or  any  stronger  or  strongest 
impulse  in  the  coincidence  of  two  or  more  of  opposite  tendency.  We 
have  no  immediate  power  of  volition  to  prevent  or  repress  such  a 
motive  state;  but  we  have  immediate  power  to  defer  any  volition  or 
deed  toward  its  end.     Then  through  reflection  and  judgment  we 


302  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

may  realize  the  motives  of  reason  and  conscience,  and  direct  our 
life  from  them. 

Is  this  power  ever  used  ?  So  it  may  be  asked  in  objection.  We 
N  N  have  previously  recognized  the  fact  of  a  widely  prevalent 
THE  USE  OF  omission  of  its  use.  The  question,  however,  or  the 
THIS  POWER,  objection  which  it  clothes,  is  irrelevant.  For  the  present 
we  are  simply  maintaining  the  reality  of  this  power,  not  its  use. 
But,  as  a  question  of  fact,  it  has  been  used,  and  in  instances  innu- 
merable. If  once  used  it  is  a  common  usable  power  of  jsersonal 
agency.  If  never  used,  then  never  in  all  the  history  of  the  ages  has 
any  man  in  a  single  instance  rationally  determined  his  own  conduct. 
Such  is  the  implication  of  that  irrelevant  objection  to  our  doctrine 
of  rational  agency.  There  is  no  need  of  further  refutation  or  reply  ; 
else  we  might  again  array  the  great  facts  of  civilization,  as  practi- 
cable only  through  a  rational  use  of  the  faculties  of  our  personal 
agency,  and  the  many  instances  of  rational  and  moral  self-direction 
in  the  formation  of  great  and  good  lives,  as  forever  concluding  the 
reality  of  this  power,  and  also  its  very  frequent  use. 

V.  SuFFiciEJs^T  Motives  for  Required  Choices. 

For  required  choices  there  must  be  sufficient  motives.  We  cannot 
SUCH  MOTIVES  othcrwisc  have  true  freedom.  This  is  consequent  to  the 
A  NECESSITY,  yational  nature  of  choice.  We  choose  for  a  motive 
rationally  apprehended.  When  the  requisite  motive  is  not  present 
to  the  mind,  or  within  its  power  to  command,  there  is  no  proper 
sphere  of  choice.  With  alternative  ends  of  equal  interest  simply  to 
the  sensibilities,  we  may  decide  for  either  or  against  both,  but  by  an 
arbitrary  volition,  not  a  choice.  If  we  may  combine  with  either  a 
rational  element,  or  a  higher  rational  element  with  the  one  than 
with  the  other,  then  may  we  choose  it.  If  against  the  impulses  of 
the  sensibilities  or  the  motives  of  secular  interest  we  may  command 
a  motive  of  duty,  then  we  may  choose  the  end  of  this  motive. 

Hence  the  law  of  freedom  is  this  :  for  the  required  choices  of 
THE  LAW  OF  prudcuce  and  duty  we  may  command  the  proper 
FREEDOM.  motives.  The  principles  of  this  law  have  already  come 
into  the  discussion ;  most  of  them  sufficiently  so.  Therefore  we 
further  require  little  more  than  the  proper  application.  Yet  a 
present  analytic  statement  of  the  cardinal  facts  of  the  question  will 
be  helpful  to  clearness  of  view.  The  law  of  freedom,  as  given, 
requires  :  1.  Sufficient  objective  motives  for  the  choices  of  j^ru- 
dence  and  duty ;  2.  A  capacity  for  the  actual  motives  of  such 
choices ;  3.  Power  to  place  the  mind  in  such  relation  to  the  objec- 
tive motives  that  we  may  realize  in  experience  the  actual  motives. 


FREEDOM  OF  C:1I01CE.  303 

1.  Objective  Motives. — The  reality  of  the  requisite  objective 
motives  none  will  question.  A  life  conducted  with  prudence  or 
reason  is,  with  all  who  think,  far  higher  and  better  than  a  life 
determined  by  spontaneous  appetence  or  j^assion.  Duty  asserts  its 
own  superiority  of  excellence  and  authority.  These  facts  clearly 
mean  the  requisite  objective  motives. 

2.  Rational  Motives. — A  capacity  for  the  rational  motives  of  life 
will  scarcely  be  questioned.  It  cannot  be  without  ques-  ^^^^  ^ 
tioning  the  fact  of  rational  agency  itself.  Agency,  in  rational 
whatever  grade,  must  have  every  capacity  or  faculty  ^GhNCT. 
necessary  to  it.  We  are  rational  agents  only  as  we  have  the  ability 
to  conduct  life  rationally.  But,  as  previously  shown,  life  can  be  so 
conducted  only  as  it  may  be  chosen.  It  can  be  chosen  only  from 
its  own  rational  motives.  These  motives  are  such,  not  simjily  as 
objective,  but  only  as  realized  in  experience.  This  requires  some- 
thing more  than  a  mere  intellective  conception  of  the  rational  ends 
of  life.  It  is  still  true  that  there  can  be  no  actual  motive  without 
some  form  of  conscious  interest  in  the  end  of  choice. 

MOTIVE   ONLY 

Hence  the  rational  ends  of  life,  as  mentally  conceived,  witheliciteo 
must  be  realized  in  a  conscious  interest  therein.  Only  '''*'^^^*^^'''- 
with  such  interest  can  they  be  rationally  eligible.  As  a  question  of 
fact  such  ends  of  life  have  Avith  many  minds  a  consciously  realized 
eligibility.  One  instance  of  a  life  rationally  conducted  must  con- 
clude the  subjective  capacity  for  these  rational  motives.  There 
are  innumerable  instances  of  the  kind. 

3.  Moral  and  Religious  Motives. — We  here  reach  the  profound- 
est  issues  of  this  question.  It  is  here,  too,  that  objections  will  be 
most  strenuously  urged  against  our  position.  We  firmly  and  con- 
fidently maintain  it.  There  must  be  a  capacity  for  the  capacity  for 
motives  of  morality  and  religion,  else  there  can  be  no  ^^^^^  motives. 
actual  motive  to  the  choice  of  either.  Without  the  proper  motive 
neither  can  be  chosen.  Without  the  choice  neither  is  possible.  In 
this  case  certain  rational  ends  of  life,  as  below  the  moral  and  spirit- 
ual, would  be  the  limit  of  oiir  agency.  It  could  not  rise  into  the 
moral  and  religious  sphere.  No  agency  can  rise  a  grade  above  its 
capabilities.  As  the  agency  of  rational  mind  is  impossible  to  mere 
animal  instinct,  so  would  moral  and  religious  agency  be  impossible 
to  man  if  without  a  capacity  for  the  necessary  moral  and  religious 
motives.  There  must  be  this  capacity,  either  as  native  or  gracious, 
else  we  cannot  be  under  obligation  to  the  choice  of  either.  As  mere 
animal  instinct  cannot  be  answerable  to  the  laws  of  a  rational  life, 
no  more  could  we  be  answerable  to  the  laws  of  a  good  life  if  without 
a  capacity  for  the  necessary  motives  to  its  choice. 


804  syste:\iatic  theology. 

We  are  not  unmindful  of  the  relations  of  this  question  to  Christian 
AS  RELATED  TO  thcologj.  It  Is  easj  to  array  the  doctrine  of  a  native 
THEOLOGY.  depravltj  against  this  capacity  for  the  motives  of 
morality  and  religion.  There  is  truth  in  both  ;  and  neither  is  less 
a  truth  for  the  reason  of  the  other.  The  capacity  for  moral  and 
religious  motives  is  none  the  less  sufficient  for  a  proper  moral  and 
religious  agency  because  of  its  gracious  original.  It  is  a  gracious 
endowment  of  fallen  humanity  through  a  redemptive  economy. 

We  appeal  the  question  of  this  capacity  to  the  moral  facts  of 
human  history,  and  none  the  less  confidently  because  of 

MORAL  FACTS  -' ^  i       i       i  t     • 

OF  HUMAN  the  prevalent  facts  of  moral  darkness,  stolidity,  and 
HISTORY.  YiQ,Q,,      The  moral  life  of  humanity  is  double — a  life 

within  a  life.  With  all  the  facts  of  evil  there  are  the  more  widely 
prevalent  facts  which  evince  the  common  sense  of  moral  obligation 
and  responsibility,  and  the  common  appreciation  of  obedience  to 
the  duties  of  morality  and  religion  as  the  supreme  excellence  and 
wisdom  of  human  life.  These  facts  require,  as  their  necessary 
source,  a  subjective  state  which  constitutes  a  capacity  for  the  mo- 
tives of  morality  and  religion,  and  hence  conclude  its  reality.  As 
for  the  question  of  moral  freedom,  it  is  indifferent  whether  this 
capacity  be  native  or  gracious.  For  the  consistency  of  Scripture 
truth  it  must  have  a  gracious  original. 

The  motives  of  morality  and  religion  are  the  paramount  motives 
PARAMOUNT  ^f  humau  life.  They  are  such,  not  only  in  intrinsic  qual- 
MOTivEs.  ity,  which  few  question  and  the  moral  consciousness  of 

humanity  affirms,  but  also  as  realizable  in  experience,  The  possi- 
bility of  this  realization  lies  in  our  actual  capacity  for  these  motives 
as  previously  shown.  Hence,  in  the  realizations  of  experience  the 
good  may  have  for  us  the  highest  eligibility  and  be  chosen  against 
the  enticements  of  evil. 

4.  Poioer  of  Commanding  the  Requisite  Motives.  —  Then  the 
power  of  rational  and  moral  agency,  as  previously  explained,  gives 
us  the  command  of  these  paramount  motives  of  life.  It  is  simply 
THE  POWER  tl^e  power  of  placing  the  mind  in  practical  relation  to 
RESTATED.  thc  grcat  truths  which  embody  these  motives.  We  can 
determine  our  profound  attention  to  these  truths  and  study  them 
just  as  we  do  in  the  case  of  secular  questions.  Our  moral  motivi- 
ties  will  answer  to  these  truths  when  so  apprehended  and  medi- 
tated.    Conscience  and  moral  reason  are  realities  with 

CONSCIENCK 

AND  MORAL  cvcry  one  yet  under  a  law  of  moral  probation.  They 
REASON.  ^^ly  ^^j^  ^^y  ^j^g  proper  reflection  to  rise  into  activi- 

ties of  a  profound  conscious  interest  in  the  ends  which  they  con- 
cern.    In  these  activities  shall  thus  be  realized  in  experience  the 


FREEDOM  OF  CIIOK^E.  .^OS 

actual  motives  to  the  choice  of  the  good.  Thus,  the  tlioughtless 
can  pause  and  reflect,  while  moral  duty  and  the  interests  which 
hinge  upon  it  shall  rise  into  view  as  of  all  things  the  most  impera- 
tive and  important.  The  worldly  mind  can  deeply  concern  itself 
with  heavenly  things.  The  sensual  can  apprehend  the  higher  and 
diviner  law  of  temperance  and  purity.  The  covetous  and  selfish 
can  ponder  the  duty  of  charity  and  realize  its  imperative  claim. 
The  hard  and  cruel  can  yield  to  the  pathos  of  kindness  and  sym- 
pathy. 

This  is  no  doctrine  of  instantaneous  self -regeneration,  nor  of  self- 
regeneration  in  any  sense.  It  is  simply  the  law  under  ^^  doctrine 
which  we  can  realize  the  paramount  eligibility  of  the  ok  self-rk- 
good.  The  power  is  a  gracious  endowment.  Also  the  ^enkration. 
divine  Spirit  is  ever  present  for  our  aid,  and  often  active  as  a  light 
in  the  moral  reason  and  a  quickening  force  in  the  conscience. 
Here  is  the  deeper  source  and  the  sufficient  source  of  a  true  moral 
agency,  with  a  capacity  for  the  motives  of  duty.  The  prevalent 
habits  of  evil  are  no  necessary  result  of  an  impotence  of  the  moral 
nature.  Nor  are  they  consequent  simply  to  a  non-use  of  its  pow- 
ers, but  mostly  from  a  persistent  resistance  to  the  spontaneous  ap- 
prehensions of  the  moral  reason  and  the  impulsions  of  conscience, 
especially  as  enlightened  and  quickened  by  the  divine  Spirit.  These 
facts  render  it  the  more  manifest  that  through  the  proper  and 
obligatory  use  of  the  powers  of  our  moral  agency  we  can  realize  the 
paramount  eligibility  of  the  good  and  choose  it  against  the  evil. 

This  primary  choice  of  the  good  is  not  the  realization  of  a  new 
spiritual  life  in  regeneration,  but  is  only,  and  can  only     choice  and 
be,  the  election  of  its  attainment.     The  choice  of  such      attainment. 
an  end  and  its  attainment  are  clearly  separable  facts.     A  new  spir- 
itual life  in  regeneration,  if  chosen  as  an  end,  still  has  its  own  mode 
of  effectuation,  and  in  itself  must  be  entirely  from  the 
divine  Spirit.     The  sphere  of  synergism  lies  back  of 
this,  where,  through  the  help  of  grace  and  a  proper  use  of  the 
powers  of  our  spiritual  agency,  we  may  choose  the  good ;  while  that 
of  the  divine  monergism  is  specially  in  the  work  of 
moral  regeneration.     Here  the    doctrine  of  the  most 
rigid  monergist  is  the  reality  of  truth  ;  while  synergism  within  its 
own  sphere  is  equally  a  truth. 

Whoever,  by  private  entreaty  or  public  address,  seeks  to  persuade 
others  from  an  evil  to  a  good  life,  must  assume  the    only  practi- 
very  law  of  freedom  which  we  here  maintain.     In  such    cal  law. 
an  endeavor  he  can  allow  no  plea  of  indifference  or  moral  insen- 
sibility, or  the  dominance  of  propensities  to  the  evil,  or  the  want  of 


306  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

actual  motives  to  the  choice  of  the  good,  to  close  the  case,  but  must 
urge  any  and  all  such  to  pause  and  think,  to  take  into  thought  and 
reflection  the  profound  obligations  and  interests  of  morality  and 
religion,  on  the  apprehension  of  which,  with  the  divine  help,  the 
paramount  motives  to  the  good  shall  be  realized  in  experience, 
when  the  good  can  be  chosen  against  the  evil.  Every  earnest 
WHATEVER  moral  and  religious  worker  does  this.  The  true  evan- 
THE  CREED.  gellsts  of  ths  Christiau  centuries,  and  without  respect 
to  theological  creed,  have  so  entreated  and  persuaded  the  thoughtless 
and  vicious.  Thus  prophets  and  apostles  and  the  Master  himself 
entreated  evil  men.  So  shall  we  continue  to  do.  But  it  is  all 
groundless  and  without  possible  result,  except  as  the  evil  have  a 
capacity  for  moral  and  religious  motives,  and  a  power  of  personal 
agency  whereby  they  may  place  their  minds  in  such  relation  to  the 
good  that  it  shall  be  apprehended  in  the  moral  reason  and  in  a 
profound  conscious  interest  as  supremely  eligible. 

5.  True  Freedom  of  Choice. — This  is  the  doctrine  of  a  rational 
and  a  real  freedom.  It  rests  upon  no  false  ground,  and  is  con- 
structed with  no  irrelevant  or  irreconcilable  principles.  Every 
vitally  related  fact  of  psychology  and  personal  agency  has  its  proper 
place  and  office. 

It  is  not  the  freedom  of  arbitrary  volition,  nor  the  liberty  of  in- 
A  RATIONAL  differeucc.  A  life  without  interest  in  its  chosen  ends 
PREEDOM.  must  be  utterly  forceless  and  useless.     Indeed,  it  could 

have  no  chosen  ends.  It  is  the  sheerest  assumption  that  either  the 
primary  choice  of  the  good  or  the  maintenance  of  a  good  life  is 
possible,  with  indifference  to  goodness  and  its  blessedness  as  ends. 
The  theory  of  a  valid  and  responsible  freedom  under  a  law  of  moral 
inability  is  of  all  theories  the  most  irrational.  It  requires  that  the 
good  be  chosen,  not  only  without  actual  motive,  but  also  against  the 
dominance  of  inevitable  counter  motive.  By  so  much  does  it  sink 
below  the  liberty  of  indifference  or  the  freedom  of  mere  arbitrary 
volition.  The  doctrine  here  maintained  is  clear  of  all  these  errors. 
Personal  agency  is  the  ground  truth.  This  agency  must  be  a  real- 
ity, else  there  can  be  no  place  for  the  question  of  freedom.  If  a 
reality,  it  must  have  all  requisite  faculties.  Then  freedom  should 
no  longer  be  a  question  in  issue.  Its  denial  involves  a  denial  of 
personal  agency  in  man.  Personal  agency  and  free  agency  are  the 
same.  For  required  choices  sufficient  motives  are  within  our  com- 
mand.    This  is  a  rational  freedom. 

It  is  not  the  freedom  of  moral  impotence,  impotence  in  the  very 
seat  of  the  necessary  potency.  It  is  the  freedom  of  personal  agency, 
with  power  for  required  choices.     It  is  sufficient  for  the  sphere  of 


fhep:i)om  of  ciiok-e.  307 

our  responsible  life.  Spontaneoiis  impnlsos  oftoji  tend  toward  the 
irrational  and  the  evil,  and  the  more  strongly  in  many  j^  rj.^,  j.^j.^.. 
instances  from  previous  vicious  indulgence  ;  but  as  "om. 
rational  and  moral  agents  we  have  a  gracious  power  against 
them.  We  can  summon  into  thought  and  reflection,  and  into  the 
apprehension  of  conscience  and  the  moral  reason,  all  the  counter 
motives  of  obligation  and  spiritual  well-being  as  they  may  arise  in 
the  view  of  God  and  redemption  and  the  eternal  destinies.  With 
these  resources  of  paramount  motive,  and  the  light  and  blessing  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  ever  gracious  and  helpful,  we  may  freely  choose 
the  good  against  the  evil.     This  is  the  reality  of  freedom  in  choice. 

Luther  :  Bondage  of  the  Will ;  Edwards  :  Freedom  of  the  Will ;  Edwards, 
the  younger  :  Liberty  and  Necessity,  Works,  vol.  i  ;  Day  :  The  Will ;  Haven  : 
Mental  Philosophy,  The  Will;  Upham  :  The  Will  ;  Hazard  :  On  the  Will;  Cau- 
sation and  Freedom  in  Willing;  Calderwood :  Moral  Philosophy,  part  iii  ; 
Fleming:  Moral  Philosophy,  book  iii ;  Smith,  Henry  B.:  Faith  and  Philosoxjhy. 
X  :  Bockshammer:  Freedom  of  the  Will;  Bledsoe:  On  the  Will ;  Theodicy,  part 
i;  Whedon:  Freedom  of  the  Will;  Mahan :  On  the  Will;  Blakey  :  Free  Will; 
Tappan:  Doctrine  of  the  Will  ;  Moral  Agency. 


308  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  V. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

Justification  by  faith  is  a  vital  part  of  Christian  soteriology. 
This  is  the  meaning  of  its  prominence  in  the  Scriptures,  particu- 
larly in  some  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul.  As  he  maintains  a  uni- 
versal sinfulness,  and  an  atonement  in  Christ  as  the  necessary 
ground  of  salvation,  so  does  he  set  forth  and  maintain  a  justifica- 
tion by  faith  as  the  only  mode  of  an  actual  salvation. 

PROMINENCE  "^  i  i        i  •  •  i  «• 

OF  THE  DOC-  This  doctrine  has  always  had  prominence  in  the  eiiect- 
"^^^^^^  ual  preaching  of  the  Gospel.     It  was  the  central  truth 

in  the  Lutheran  reformation.  Luther  himself,  even  with  the  clear- 
est conviction  of  the  many  errors  of  Romanism,  still  groped  in  the 
dark  until  his  mind  grasped  this  great  truth.  As  he  found  therein 
his  own  salvation,  so  through  the  power  of  the  same  truth  the  ref- 
ormation which  he  led  became  effectual  in  the  salvation  of  many. 
So  was  it  in  the  great  Wesleyan  evangelism.  Again  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  was  the  central  truth  in  a  preaching  marvel- 
ously  effective  in  salvation.  As  it  has  been,  so  must  it  be.  If  in 
the  future  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  shall  be  effectual  in  the  sal- 
vation of  men,  so  must  it  be  the  preaching  of  justification  by  faith 
in  Christ. 

On  the  truth  of  the  facts  just  stated  a  clear  and  truthful  view 
of  the  doctrine  of  justification  must  be  profoundly  im- 

IMPORTANCE  ,        •>  ^  ,11 

OF  A  TRUE  portant.  Only  m  an  evangelical  system  can  there  be  a 
DOCTRINE.  ^^^^g  doctrine.  As  systems  depart  from  an  evangelical 
basis,  so  must  this  doctrine  be  obscured  or  perverted,  while  in  the 
extreme  departures  it  must  be  entirely  lost.  Evangelical  systems 
may  differ  respecting  some  facts,  while  each  holds  the  vital  truth  of 
the  doctrine.  Between  the  Arminian  and  Calvinistic  systems  there 
are  differences  on  this  question,  which  arise  mainly  from  a  differ- 
ence of  views  respecting  the  nature  of  the  atonement;  but  both 
systems  hold  the  atonement  as  the  true  and  only  ground  of  justifi- 
cation, and  faith  in  Christ  as  the  one  condition  of  its  attainment; 
and  in  these  facts  both  hold  the  vital  truth  of  the  doctrine. 

In  the  discussion  of  justification  it  will  be  proper  to  consider  its 
nature,  ground,  and  condition.  The  treatment  of  these  three 
questions  is  necessary  to  the  clearer  view  of  the  doctrine. 


JUSTIFICATION.  309 

I.  The  Nature  of  Justification". 
While  it  is  proper  to  treat  the  nature  of  justification  Beparately 
from  its  around,  yet  the  two  are  so  closely  related  that 

,,  ,  *=  •  -a.       4.     11  -i-  1        •  RELATION'  OP 

the  former  can  receive  its  lull  exposition  only  in  con-  nature  and 
nection  with  the  latter.  Particularly  is  it  true  that  the  «Round. 
points  of  difference  between  the  Arminian  and  Calvinistic  views 
cannot  otherwise  he  clearly  set  forth.  The  impossibility  arises  from 
the  fact  that  in  each  system  the  view  of  justification  is  determined 
by  the  view  of  the  atonement  as  its  ground. 

1.  Terminology  of  the  Subject. — The  nature  of  justification  must 
be  studied  in  view  of  the  terms  wherein  it  is  expressed,  or  which 
are  used  in  such  relation  to  it  as  to  concern  its  proper  interpreta- 
tion. There  are  terms  which  relate  to  God  as  justifier,  and  to  his 
act  of  justification;  and  terms  which  relate  to  the  subjects  justified, 
to  the  condition  of  the  justification,  and  to  the  righteousness  which 
is  the  result  of  the  divine  act  of  justification.  However,  the  fuller 
exposition  of  these  terms  belongs  properly  to  the  more  direct  treat- 
ment of  the  nature  of  justification;  so  that  we  here  need  no  formal 
statement  of  their  meaning.  It  is  mainly  their  use  in  relation  to 
justification  that  we  think  it  needful  here  to  point  out. 

One  term  is  diaaiog,  which,  in  ajiplication  to  God,  means  his 
justice  or  righteousness,  particularly  in  the  justification  different 
of  sinners  on  the  ground  of  atonement.'  Another  term  terms. 
is  dtKatoco,  which  means  the  divine  act  in  the  justification  of  sinners 
who  believe  in  Christ.^  Another  term,  and  one  in  very  frequent 
use,  is  diKaLoavvT],  which,  as  applied  to  this  subject,  specially  means 
the  righteousness  which  God  confers  by  the  act  of  justification.* 
Another  term  is  Xoyi^ofiai,  which  is  used  in  the  sense  of  counting, 
reckoning,  or  imputing  faith  for  righteousness,  and  righteousness 
without  works.''  If  other  terms  are  needed  they  will  appear  in  the 
discussion. 

3.  Forensic  View  of  Justification. — Justification  is  a  court  term, 
and  in  its  purely  forensic  sense  means  a  judgment  of  judicial 
innocence  or  righteousness.     If  so  applied  to  God's  act  sense. 

of  justification  it  must  mean  simply  his  judgment  of  the  legal 
status  of  the  justified,  and  not  his  act  which  determines  that 
status;  that  is,  that  God's  act  of  justification  is  rather  his  judicial 
utterance  that  the  person  justified  is  right  with  the  law  than  a  gra-  ^ 
cious  act  of  forgiveness  which  sets  him  right  with  the  law.  Under- 
lying this  view  is  the  principle,  which  is  often  asserted,  that  those 
whom  the  divine  judgment  declares  righteous  must  be  righteous  in 
'  Rom.  iii,  26.  »  Rom.  iii,  30  ;  iv,  5  ;  Gal.  iii,  8. 

»  Rom.  iii,  21,  22  ;  iv,  3,  5,  6  ;  Phil,  iii,  9.  *  Rom.  iv,  3-6. 

22  ' 


310  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

fact.  The  principle  is  valid  in  itself,  and  would  be  necessary  to  the 
UNDERLYING  placc  hcrc  assigned  it  if  justification  were  of  the  nature 
PRINCIPLE.  iiere  maintained.  But  as  it  is  not  such,  the  necessity 
for  that  principle  is  only  theoretical,  not  real.  Such  a  view  of  jus- 
tification must  assume  a  prior  divine  act  of  forgiveness,  which 
constitutes  no  part  of  the  justification  itself.  Further,  it  must 
assume  a  prior  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  for  only 
thus  could  sinners  be  viewed  as  even  theoretically  qualified  for  a 
strictly  forensic  justification.  It  is  in  this  manner  that  Calvinism 
provides  for  such  a  justification. 

Justification,  particularly  in  that  form  of  it  with  which  we  are 
NOT  STRICTLY  HOW  conccmed,  cannot  be  strictly  forensic.  The  possi- 
FORENsic.  bility  is  excluded  by  the  very  nature  of  such  a  justifica- 
tion. A  person  is  arraigned  and  tried  for  some  offense  or  crime 
against  the  law,  but  in  the  process  of  the  trial  proves  his  innocence. 
The  court  so  decides,  and  formally  pronounces  him  right  with  the 
law:  this  is  a  forensic  justification.  But  the  subjects  of  the  divine 
justification  are  sinners.  This  fact  is  so  explicitly  scriptural  that 
it  cannot  be  questioned.  Such  they  are  in  the  divine  judgment 
and  condemnation;  and  as  such  they  cannot  be  the  subjects  of  a 
forensic  justification. 

The  theory  really  requires  a  twofold  justification:  one  in  the 
A  TWOFOLD  literal  sense  of  making  righteous  ;  the  other  in  the  ju- 
jusTiFicA-  dicial  sense  of  declaring  righteous.  An  imputation  of 
TioN.  ^j^g  righteousness  of  Christ  which  makes  righteous  must 

be  a  distinct  fact  from  the  forensic  justification,  and  must  precede 
it  as  its  necessary  ground.  The  true  doctrine  of  justification  is  not 
to  be  found  in  this  complex  view. 

3.  The  Vital  Fact  of  Forgiveness. — Forgiveness  really  has  no 
place  in  a  strictly  forensic  justification.  It  cannot  have  any,  since 
such  a  justification  is  simply  an  authoritative  judgment  of  actual 
righteousness.  Hence  forgiveness  and  forensic  justification  can 
neither  be  the  same  thing  nor  constituent  parts  of  the  same  thing. 
There  must  be  error  in  any  theory  which  omits  forgiveness  as  the 
vital  fact  of  justification. 

That  justification  means  forgiveness  is  manifest  in  the  fact  that 
THE  TRUTH  OF  siuucrs  or  the  ungodly  are  justified.  This  is  clearly  the 
FORGiTENEss.  doctriue  of  St.  Pauh  ^'For  all  have  sinned,  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God;  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.**  "  But  to  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is 
counted  for  righteousness.** '  The  words  of  David,"  as  St.  Paul  fits 
'  Eom.  iii,  23,  24  ;  iv,  5.  '  Psa.  xxxii,  1,  2. 


JUSTIFICATION.  311 

them  into  liis  own  doctrine,   can  have  no  proper   interpretation 
without  the  fact  of  forgiveness  in  justification.' 

The  interchanging  use  of  Justification  and  forgiveness  gives  to 
the  former  the  meaning  of  the  latter.  Such  use  is  too  one  meaning 
clear  and  sure  to  admit  of  any  doubt.  ^'Be  it  known  of  two  terms. 
unto  you  therefore,  men  and  brethren,  that  through  this  man  is 
preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins  :  and  by  him  all  that  be- 
lieve are  Justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not  be  Justi- 
fied by  the  law  of  Moses."*  In  tliis  text  the  word  Justified  is  in 
meaning  the  very  same  as  that  of  forgiveness,  which  it  follows 
in  the  same  sentence. 

"  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in 
his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  ^  conclcsivb 
sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  to  text. 
declare,  I  say,  at  this  time  his  righteousness  :  that  he  might  be  Just, 
and  the  Justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus.''* '  First  of  all, 
the  propitiation  in  the  blood  of  Christ  has  respect  to  both  the  real- 
ity and  the  remission  of  sins.  Next,  it  is  related  to  God  as  the 
ground  of  his  righteousness  in  such  remission.  The  declaration  of 
his  righteousness  thereon  is  twice  made  in  the  same  sentence.  But 
when,  in  the  second  instance,  it  is  followed  by  the  terms  of  Justifi- 
cation instead  of  the  term  remission,  as  in  the  first,  the  Justifica- 
tion must  be  the  same  as  the  remission.  There  is  the  same  propi- 
tiation, the  same  declaration  of  the  divine  righteousness,  the  same 
condition  of  faith  in  Christ,  in  connection  with  the  one  term  as 
with  the  other.  There  is  no  new  form  of  thought  in  the  transition 
from  the  one  to  the  other. 

4.  TJie  Use  of  Forensic  Terms. — We  have  already  given  the 
meaning  of  a  strictly  forensic  Justification,  and  shown  that  such 
could  not  be  the  divine  Justification  of  a  sinner.  There  can  be 
no  strictly  forensic  Justification  of  a  sinner  except  by  a  mistaken  or 
a  corrupt  Judgment,  neither  of  which  is  possible  with  God.  Yet 
this  forensic  term  is  appropriated  for  the  expression  of  his  act  in 
the  forgiveness  of  sin.  Of  course  it  is  so  used  in  a  qualified  sense, 
and  yet  not  in  a  sense  which  is  alien  to  its  primary  meaning. 

There  is  one  fact  of  the  divine  forgiveness  which  is  closely  kin- 
dred to  a  forensic  Justification  :  the  result  of  forgiveness  resfltoffor- 
is  a  Justified  state.  With  respect  to  the  guilt  of  all  gitenes.^ 
past  sins,  the  forgiveness  sets  the  sinner  right  with  the  law  and 
with  God.  That  is,  by  the  divine  act  of  forgiveness  he  is  made  as 
completely  free  from  guilt  and  condemnation,  or  from  amenability 
to  punishment  for  past  sins,  as  he  could  be  by  the  most  formal 
'  Rom.  iv,  6-8.  » Acts  xiii,  38,  39.  'Rom.  iii,  25,  26. 


312  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

jvidgment  of  innocence.  With  this  result  of  forgiveness  it  may 
properly  be  called  a  justification. 

The  Justification  of  a  sinner  is  an  act  of  God  in  the  exercise  of 
FORGIVENESS  ^i^  rightf  ul  sovcreignty.  It  is  not,  however,  the  act  of 
A  DIVINE  ACT.  an  arbitrary  sovereignty,  as  we  shall  directly  point  out, 
but  an  act  of  God  as  supreme  moral  ruler.  Calvinism  must  insist 
that  justification  is  definitely  and  only  a  judicial  act  of  God.  This 
accords  with  the  view  of  justification  as  strictly  forensic.  But  as 
that  view  is  not  the  correct  one,  as  we  have  shown,  there  is  no  rea- 
son for  the  position  that  the  act  of  God  in  justification  or  the  for- 
giveness of  sin  is  purely  a  judicial  one.  It  suffices  that  it  is  the  act 
IN  SUPREME  of  God  as  moral  ruler.  As  such  it  is  complete  in  its 
AUTHORITY.  authorlty,  and  from  it  there  is  no  appeal  :  ''^  It  is 
God  that  justifieth.  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  " '  It  is  as  moral 
ruler,  and  in  possession  of  the  supreme  powers  of  moral  govern- 
ment, that  he  condemns  us  for  our  sins  ;  and  so  in  the  exercise 
of  the  same  powers  he  forgives  our  sins.  In  the  result  we  are,  as 
before  pointed  out,  as  completely  right  with  the  law  as  we  could  be 
from  a  purely  forensic  justification.  So  far  the  idea  of  such  a  jus- 
tification is  present  in  the  divine  remission  of  sins. 

Finally,  God  forgives  sin,  not  in  the  exercise  of  an  absolute  sov- 
THRouGH  THE  erciguty,  but  only  on  the  ground  of  the  atonement, 
ATONEMENT.  whicli  rcndcrs  the  forgiveness  consistent  with  his  jus- 
tice and  the  interests  of  his  moral  government.  Thus  through  the 
propitiation  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  God  is  righteous  in  the  remission 
of  sin  ;  at  once  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in 
Jesus.'  These  facts  warrant  the  use  of  justification  for  the  expres- 
sion of  the  divine  forgiveness. 

5.  A  Change  of  Legal  Status. — Justification  effects  no  change  in 
the  interior  moral  state.  All  change  therein  is  definitely  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration  or  sanctification.  It  is  not  in  the 
NO  INTERIOR  naturc  of  justification  that  it  should  effect  any  such 
CHANGE.  change.     It  has  respect  to  man  simply  as  a  sinner  and 

amenable  to  punishment,  and  its  whole  work  is  to  free  him  from  such 
amenability.  It  is  in  this  case  just  as  in  that  of  the  pardon  of  a 
criminal  by  the  governor  of  a  State,  which  effects  no  purification 
of  his  inner  nature.  If  in  some  texts  justification  seems  to  mean 
more  than  we  here  ascribe  to  it,  in  such  texts  it  must  be  used  in  a 
sense  broader  than  its  own  proper  meaning. 

The  justification  is  complete  in  its  own  proper  work.  It  cannot 
annihilate  the  deeds  of  sin  out  of  which  guilt  arises.  They  are 
eternal  and  unchangeable  realities,  and  must  forever  be  the  deeds  of 
'Bom.  viii,  33,  34.  2  Rom.  iii,  24-26. 


JUSTIFICATION.  313 

their  authors.  Forgiveness  abates  nothing  of  their  intrinsic  de- 
merit, but  is  a  complete  discharge  from  their  guilt  as  an  completk  as 
amenability  to  punishment.  In  such  a  sense  of  guilt,  >"oroivenes8. 
and  with  respect  to  all  jjast  sins,  the  forgiveness  is  complete.  So  far 
justification  sets  the  sinner  right  with  God  ;  as  completely  right  as 
if  he  had  never  sinned.  It  is  not  a  small  blessing.  AVith  all  the 
limitations  that  we  pointed  out  it  is  still  a  great  blessing,  great  in 
itself  and  great  in  the  privileges  to  which  it  opens  the  way. 

II.  The  Grouxd  of  Justification. 

We  previously  stated  the  very  close  connection  between  the  nat- 
ure and  the  ground  of  justification,  and  that  it  was  only  in  the 
treatment  of  tlie  latter  that  we  could  attain  the  clearer  view  of  the 
former.  We  are  not  here  concerned  with  minor  differences  respect- 
ing this  ground,  but  may  properly  consider  it  as  held  in  some  of  the 
leading  systems  of  theology. 

1.  In  Socinianism. — We  here  use  the  term  Socinianism  as  rep- 
resentative of  all  schools  which  are  Pelagian  in  anthropology  and 
Socinian  in  Christology  and  soteriology.  However,  in  these  schools 
there  are  all  shades  of  opinion,  even  down  to  the  line  of  an  open 
infidelity. 

Socinus  himself  held  to  a  form  of  justification,  and  made  large 
account  of  faith  in  Christ  as  concerned  therein;  not,  the  view  or 
however,  as  the  condition  of  forgiveness,  but  as  an  act  socinus. 
of  the  highest  form  of  obedience,  and  therefore  as  a  fact  of  personal 
righteousness.  It  means  a  justification  simply  by  works.  It  hardly 
need  be  observed  that  the  view  is  in  the  widest  dissent  from  the 
Pauline  doctrine.  In  such  a  view  Christ  is  not  in  any  proper  sense 
the  ground  of  forgiveness,  nor  faith  its  condition.  There  is  no 
justification  in  forgiveness  ;  but  a  sinner  is  justified  as  he  comes  to 
render  a  righteous  obedience  to  the  will  of  God. 

In  affiliated  schools,  such  as  the  Unitarian  and  XJniversalist,  some 
admit  a  proper  forgiveness  of  sin,  but  hold  that  repent-  affiliated 
ance  is  its  true  and  sufficient  ground.  Neither  Christ  schools. 
nor  faith  in  Christ  has  any  necessary  relation  to  either  the  repent- 
ance or  the  forgiveness.  Others  deny  the  possibility  of  forgiveness. 
All  sin  must  suffer  its  deserved  penalty,  either  in  this  life  or  in 
the  next.  Still  others  deny  all  proper  demerit  of  sin,  and  hence 
deny  all  forgiveness.  Sin  and  suffering  are  related  purely  as  cause 
and  effect,  and  the  suffering  as  naturally  consequent  to  sin  is  inev- 
itable. These  views  utterly  exclude  every  element  of  a  true  doctrine 
of  justification. 

3.  In  Romanism. — Romanism  holds  strongly  the  doctrine  of  vica- 
22  * 


314  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

rious  atonement.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  the  satisfaction  of  jus- 
pERVERTiNG  ^^^^  ^^^  huHian  sin.  This  satisfaction  is  the  ground  of 
LIMITATIONS,  forgivcncss.  Yet  there  is  a  limitation  with  respect 
to  both  the  satisfaction  and  the  forgiveness  which  perverts  the 
doctrine  of  justification  and  departs  from  its  only  true  and  suffi- 
cient ground.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  made  satisfaction  for  sin  as 
it  respects  the  desert  of  eternal  punishment,  and  forgiveness  en- 
tirely frees  us  from  amenability  thereto  ;  but  there  are  certain  de- 
serts of  temporal  punishment  for  which  satisfaction  is  not  made, 
and  which  therefore  are  not  canceled  in  forgiveness.  Such  pun- 
ishments must  be  suffered  either  in  this  life  or  in  purgatory.  The 
only  possible  release  is  through  voluntary  penance  or  the  surplus 
merits  of  the  saints.  Here  is  serious  error  as  it  respects  both  the 
ground  and  condition  of  justification.' 

There  are  other  serious  errors.     Sanctification  is  included  in  jus- 
tification: or,  rather,  we  are  justified  only  as  we  are 

IDENTIFIED  7  ^  *  v  •/ 

WITH  sANCTi-  sanctified.  The  sanctification  is  by  a  divine  infusion 
ncATioN.  Qf  grace.  The  specific  office  of  faith  as  the  one  con- 
dition of  justification  is  really  denied.  We  are  justified  by  faith 
only  as  faith  itself  becomes  the  source  of  a  new  spiritual  life.'' 
3.  Li  Calvinism. — In  this  system  the  atonement  in  Christ  is  in 
the  deepest  sense  the  ground  of  justification,  but  in  a 

JUSTIFICATION  <d  v 

STRICTLY  Fo-  modc  pecuHar  to  itself.  Justification  is  held  to  be 
RENsic.  strictly  forensic,  as  previously  shown.     It  thus  means 

simply  a  divine  judgment  or  declaration  of  righteousness.  But 
those  whom  God  declares  righteous  must  be  righteous  in  fact. 
Therefore,  as  all  are  sinners,  there  must  be  a  justification  in  the 
sense  of  making  righteous  prior  to  such  forensic  justification. 
8UCH  IS  ITS  Hence,  to  provide  for  the  prior  justification,  Christ 
GROUND.  must  so  take  the  place  of  sinners  as  to  suffer  the  pun- 

ishment due  to  their  sins  and  fulfill  the  righteousness  required  of 
them,  and  the  substitution  in  both  instances  must  be  accounted  to 
them  by  imputation.  It  is  in  this  sense  and  in  this  mode  that  the 
atonement  is  held  to  be  the  ground  of  justification.' 

There  is  here  an  exact  accordance  between  the  nature  of  the 
NATURE  AND  justlficatlon  maintained  and  the  alleged  ground  of  it; 
GROUND  IN  but  there  is  error  respecting  both.  The  atonement  is 
ACCORD.  jjq|.  q£  ^|-^g  nature  here  assumed,  as  we  have  shown  in 

the  treatment  of  that  subject.     Therefore  there  must  be  error  in 

'  Council  of  Trent,  14tli  session,  Canons  13-15  ;  Elliott :  Romanism,  vol.  i, 
book  ii,  chap.  xi.  ^Moehler:  Symbolism,  pp.  201-207. 

^  Westminster  Confession,  chap,  xi ;  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  70  ;  Buchanan  :  Doc- 
trine of  Justification,  pp.  116-118  ;  A.  A.  Hodge  :  The  Atonement,  pp.  224-227. 


JUSTIFICATION.  315 

the  justification  here  maintained — must  be,  because  it  requires  that 
mistaken  view  of  the  substitution  of  Christ.  The  doctrine  is  right 
in  finding  in  the  atonement  the  only  ground  of  justification,  but 
mistakes  its  nature,  and  therefore  mistakes  the  true  nature  of  justi- 
fication itself. 

The  question  of  imputed  righteousness  in  justification  requires 
further  treatment.     Christ  is  assumed  to  be  the  substi- 
tute of  elect  sinners  in  two  respects:  in  the  one  as  suf-     J^^ted^  ^^ 
fering  the  punishment  which  they  deserve;  in  the  other      righteous- 
as  fulfilling  the  personal  righteousness  due  from  them.      ''^'^'^' 
The  former  question  was  sufficiently  discussed  in  our  treatment  of 
the  atonement,  but  the  latter  is  still  on  hand. 

If  Christ  was  really  the  substitute  of  elect  sinners  in  personal 
righteousness,  then  the  same  might  be  imputed  to  them  no  such  a 
as  the  ground  of  their  justification;  but  such  a  substi-  substitution, 
tution  is  an  assumption  of  theology,  not  a  truth  of  the  Scriptures. 
Or,  if  justification  were  strictly  forensic,  it  might  be  assumed  to 
imply  the  substitution  of  Christ  and  the  imputation  of  his  right- 
eousness as  its  necessary  ground;  but  as  it  is  not  such,  but  is  in 
fact  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  as  we  have  clearly  shown,  it  neither  re- 
quires nor  implies  such  a  substitution,  but  is  conclusive  against  it. 

The  Scriptures  deeply  emphasize  the  personal  righteousness  or 
sinlessness  of  Christ,  but  specially  and  definitely  as  the 
requirement  of  his  joriestly  offices.'      The  texts  here  righteous- 
given  by  reference  most  fully  justify  our  position;  and  ness  of 
they  are  the  leading  texts  which  directly  concern  this 
question.     Their  explicit  sense  is  that  the  personal  righteousness 
of  Christ  goes  into  his  saving  work,  not  as  a  vicarious  and  imputa- 
ble righteousness,  but  as  an  element  of  value  in  his  atoning  death 
and  intercession. 

The  texts  usually  adduced  in  proof  of  an  imputation  of  the  per- 
sonal righteousness  of  Christ  are  inconclusive,  and  may 

°  ,  .  .  PROOF  TEXTS. 

be  satisfactorily  interpreted  without  it.     "  In  the  Lord 

have  I  righteousness  and  strength."  ^     But  as  this  strength  is  not  an 

imputation  of  the  divine  strength,  there  is  no  need  to 

interpret   the    righteousness    as   such    an    imputation. 

Besides,  both  the  marginal  reading  and  the  New  Version  exclude 

the  possibility  of  such  an  interpretation.     "  And  this  is  his  name 

whereby  he  shall  be  called.  The  Lord  our  Righteous-       jeremiah. 

NESS." '     That  our  Lord  should  be  so  called  means  that 

he  is  our  righteousness.      But  how  ?     Surely  not  literally  such. 

1  2  Cor.  V,  21  ;  Heb.  iv,  14-16 ;  vii,  26,  27 ;  ix,  14 ;  1  Pet.  iii,  18. 
*  Isa.  xlv,  24.  ^  Jer.  xxiii,  6. 


316  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

How  then?  Clearly,  by  some  agency  whereby  we  are  brought  into 
a  state  of  righteousness.  We  are  brought  into  such  a  state  through 
the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  and  the  purification  of  our  nature,  with 
the  resulting  new  spiritual  life — all  being  the  fruit  of  our  Lord's 
redemptive  mediation.  This  view  is  thoroughly  scriptural,  and 
fully  answers  for  the  meaning  of  this  text,  without  the  unexpressed, 
and  indeed  unimplied,  imputation  of  his  personal  righteousness. 
'^  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  so 
by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  ' 
This  is  a  text  of  special  reliance.  The  relations  of  the 
race  respectively  to  Adam  and  Christ  are  here  the  great  subject. 
In  the  one  the  race  fell;  by  the  other  it  is  redeemed.  The  fall  was 
through  the  disobedience  of  Adam.  St.  Paul  having  so  expressed 
this  fact,  it  was  very  natural,  and  almost  of  course,  that  he  should 
ascribe  our  redemption  to  the  obedience  of  Christ.  But  we  must 
include  therein  his  passive  obedience,  because  we  cannot  be  justified 
without  his  blood.  Therefore  only  such  a  form  of  obedience  may 
be  meant.  Such  a  meaning  simply  places  this  text  in  complete 
harmony  with  others  wherein  our  redemption  through  the  suffering 
and  death  of  Christ  is  expressed  as  the  work  of  his  obedience.''  We 
certainly  do  not  need  for  its  interpretation  the  idea  of  an  immediate 
imputation  of  his  personal  righteousness;  therefore  it  does  not  prove 
such  an  imputation.  There  is  another  decisive  fact:  we  were  not 
made  sinners  by  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  in  the  sense  of  this 
doctrine — as  was  shown  in  our  anthropology;  therefore  we  are  not 
made  righteous  by  an  immediate  imputation  of  the  personal  right- 
eousness of  Christ. 

"  But  of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us 
wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  re- 
RiGHTEors-  demption:"^  wisdom,  as  he  is  the  manifestation  of  the 
NESS  UNTO  US.  ^Isdom  of  God,  specially  in  the  plan  of  human  salva- 
tion; sanctification,  in  the  purification  of  our  nature  through  his 
grace;  redemption,  as  he  redeems  us  with  his  own  blood  and  accom- 
plishes the  work  of  our  salvation.  There  is  no  place  for  imputation 
in  any  of  these  instances.  Nor  is  any  needed  in  the  instance  of 
righteousness.  As  through  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ  we  are  jus- 
tified in  the  remission  of  sin,  so  is  he  made  righteousness  unto  us. 
There  is  here  no  proof  of  the  imputation  of  his  personal  righteous- 
MADE  TO  BE  ness.  "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who 
SIN  FOR  us.  knew  no  sin;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  him."  *     To  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Christ 

'  Eom.  V,  19.      '  Matt,  xxvi,  39, 42  ;  John  x,  17, 18  ;  Phil,  ii,  8 ;  Heb.  x,  5-10. 
^ICor.  i,  30.  ^2Cor.  V,  21. 


JUSTIFICATION.  317 

must  mean  to  be  made  partakers  of  the  righteousness  provided  in 
him.  How  is  this  righteousness  provided?  The  answer  is  obvious: 
By  his  sacrificial  death.  This  is  the  meaning  of  his  being  made  sin 
for  us ;  that  is,  a  sin-otfering.  The  word  rendered  sin — afiaQTia — 
cannot  here  mean  anything  else.  Thus  the  whole  ground  of  this 
righteousness  lies  in  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ.  Hence  his 
personal  righteousness  is  not  only  omitted  from  this  ground,  but  is 
really  excluded.  It  is  only  from  a  mental  habit  of  always  seeing  in 
Christian  righteousness  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  that 
any  one  could  think  of  finding  the  proof  of  such  a  doctrine  in  this 
text.     Indeed,  it  proves  the  contrary. 

There  is  one  fact  which  is  in  itself  conclusive  against  this  doctrine 
of  imputation.  It  is  the  fact  that  the  salvation  in  conclusion 
Christ,  both  as  a  present  attainment  and  a  future  against  thk 
blessedness,  has  its  complete  ground  in  his  vicarious  i^^p'^tation. 
sacrifice.  A  brief  statement  of  facts  will  show  this.  Herein  we 
have  reconciliation  with  God;'  the  forgiveness  of  sin;'  justifica- 
tion;^ righteousness;*  regeneration  and  a  new  spiritual  life;*  adop- 
tion and  heirship; "  meetness  for  heaven  and  the  possession  of  future 
blessedness.'  Thus  it  is  that  all  the  blessings  of  a  complete  salva- 
tion are  grounded  in  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ.  imputation 
Hence  there  is  no  place  for  the  imputation  of  his  per-  excluded. 
sonal  righteousness,  and  no  need  of  it.  Indeed,  it  is  excluded.  It 
is  possible,  as  we  before  pointed  out,  to  express  the  vicarious  sacri- 
fice of  Christ  in  the  terms  of  obedience,  but  we  cannot  express  that 
form  of  his  personal  righteousness  which  is  held  to  be  imputed  to 
us,  in  the  terms  of  such  sacrifice.  The  fundamental  distinction  of 
the  two,  as  maintained  in  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  renders  this 
impossible.  The  imputation  of  the  personal  righteousness  of  Christ 
in  our  justification,  and  as  the  ground  of  our  title  to  a  heavenly  in- 
heritance, is  thus  thoroughly  disproved. 

4.  In  Arminianism. — In  Arrainianism  the  atonement  is  the  true 
and  only  ground  of  justification,  but  in  a  sense  con-  nature  of  thk 
sistent  with  the  system.  In  this  system  the  vicarious  ground. 
sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  the  actual  punishment  of  sin  in  the 
satisfaction  of  retributive  justice,  but  a  provisory  substitute  for 
penalty,  so  that  sin  might  be  actually  forgiven.  This  accords 
with  the  nature  of  justification  as  being  such  a  forgiveness.  In 
this  sense  the  atonement  is  the  real  and  only  ground  of  justifi- 
cation. 

'  Rom.  V,  10 ;  Eph.  ii,  13, 16 ;  Col.  i,  20-22.  •  Eph.  i,  7 ;  CoL  i,  14. 

'  Rom.  iii,  24,  25 ;  v,  9.  <  2  Cor.  v.  2t. 

*  Heb.  ix,  14  ;  1  John  i,  7  ;  Rev.  i,  5.        •  Gal.  iv,  4-7.        '  Rev.  vii,  14-17. 


318  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

This  sense  agrees  with  vitally  related  facts  :  with  the  actual  guilt 
IN  AGREEMENT  ^f  redeemed  sinners  until  actually  forgiven  in  justifi- 
wiTH  FACTS,  cation  ;  with  such  forgiveness  as  the  essential  fact  of 
justification  ;  with  the  real  conditionality  of  forgiveness  or  justifica- 
tion. Were  the  atonement  absolute,  as  it  must  be  if  in  the  mode  of 
penal  substitution,  there  could  be  neither  guilt  nor  forgiveness  in 
the  case  of  any  redeemed  by  Christ,  nor  any  conditionality  of  jus- 
tification. The  reality  of  these  facts  is  conclusive  of  a  merely  pro- 
visional ground  of  justification  in  the  atonement.  It  is  none  the 
less  real,  or  necessary,  or  sufficient  because  only  provisional  in  its 
nature. 

5.  Justification  Purely  of  Grace. — This  is  the  doctrine  of  St. 
ON  OUR  OWN  Paul,  repeatedly  expressed.'  It  is  eminently  such  on 
DOCTRINE.  Quj.  own  doctrine  of  atonement.  The  pre-eminence 
which  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  here  assumes  is  utterly  ground- 
less. This  was  clearly  shown  in  our  discussion  of  the  atonement. 
According  to  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  God  remits  no  penalty;  and 
where  there  is  no  forgiveness  of  sin  there  can  be  no  grace  of  for- 
giveness. On  the  doctrine  which  we  maintain,  the  atonement  fully 
provides  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  but  in  itself  simply  abates  noth- 
ing of  our  guilt.  Our  justification  or  the  forgiveness  of  our  sin 
must  therefore  be  purely  an  act  of  grace.  The  thought  of  this 
grace  is  intensified  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  ground  of  its  exer- 
cise is  a  provision  of  the  infinite  love  of  God. 

III.  The  Condition  of  Justification. 

1.  Faith  the  One  Condition. — By  the  condition  of  justification 
we  mean  the  personal  action  required  for  its  attainment.  That 
requirement  is  faith,  and  faith  only.  But  this  faith  is  specific  as 
it  respects  both  its  object  and  nature,  and  these  facts  must  be  set 
forth  in  order  to  complete  the  idea  of  faith  itself  as  the  condition 
of  justification. 

The  Scriptures  leave  us  no  reason  to  doubt  that  faith  is  the  real 
and  only  condition  of  justification.     This  is  so  openly 

Faith  *j  v  x         «y 

true  that  a  mere  reference  to  a  few  texts  will  here  suf- 
fice."   The  same  truth  is  emphasized  in  many  texts  which  discrim- 
inate faith  from  works,  and  affirm  that  we  are  justified 

NOT  WORKS 

by  faith  and  not  by  works,  or  by  faith  without  works.  ^ 
This  fact  makes  doubly  sure  the  sense  of  Scripture,  that  faith  is 
the  one  condition  of  justification. 

'  Eom.  iii,  24 ;  iv,  16  ;  Titus  iii,  5-7. 

»  Rom.  iii,  21-26  ;  iv,  3,  23-25  ;   Gal.  iii,  24. 

'Acts  xiii,  38,  39  ;  Eom.  iii,  20-22,  28  ;   iv,  2-5  ;  ix,  31,  32  ;  Gal.  ii,  16. 


JUSTIFICATION.  319 

It  is  utterly  groundless  to  say  that  it  is  only  the  works  of  the  cer- 
emonial law  that  are  excluded  from  all  part  in  the  ^^l  works 
justification  of  sinners.  Works  of  the  moral  law  are  kxcludep. 
equally  excluded.  This  is  manifest  in  the  great  argument  of  St. 
Paul  through  which  he  reaches  the  impossibility  of  justification  by 
works.  The  impossibility  lies  in  the  universality  of  sin  :  "  For  all 
have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God. " '  The  deeds  of  sin 
with  which  he  deals  are  specially  violations  of  the  moral  law,  either 
as  manifest  in  the  light  of  nature  or  as  given  by  revelation.  There 
is  this  further  decisive  fact  :  The  impossibility  of  justification  by 
deeds  of  law  is  affirmed  of  the  Gentile  whose  only  law  is  the  moral 
law.  In  this  case  there  could  be  no  reference  to  the  ceremonial 
law.  Hence  there  is  the  same  condition  of  justification  for  the 
Gentile  as  for  the  Jew.'* 

2.  The  Imputation  of  Faith  for  Righteousness. — "With  the 
word  impute  we  have  also  the  words  count  and  reckon.  Faith  is 
imj)uted  for  righteousness,  counted  for  righteousness,  reckoned  for 
righteousness.^  There  is  no  difference  of  meaning  in  these  words, 
as  here  used,  that  requires  any  notice.  They  are  all  the  rendering 
of  the  same  word,  Xoyi^onai. 

Two  facts  should  be  specially  noted.  One  is,  that  it  is  faith  it- 
self, and  not  its  object,  that  is  thus  imputed.  This  is  ^^^^^  ns^is^ 
certain  even  where  a  pronoun  is  the  immediate  ante-  and  not  it» 
cedent  to  the  verb.  Here  is  an  instance:  "■' For  what 
saith  the  Scripture  ?  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto 
him  for  righteousness."*  Here  only  the  faith  of  Abraham  can  be 
the  antecedent  to  the  pronoun  it ;  and  hence  only  his  faith  could  be 
the  subject  of  the  imputation.  Further,  faith  itself,  as  so  named, 
is  repeatedly  the  immediate  nominative  to  the  imputation.  Here 
are  instances  :  "His  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness  ;  "  "faith 
was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteousness."  *  Hence  any  attempt 
at  a  metonymical  interpretation  of  faith,  so  that  it  shall  mean,  not 
itself  but  its  object,  that  is  Christ,  and  hence  mean  one's  own 
the  imputation  of  his  personal  righteousness,  is  utterly  i^'^^h. 
vain.  The  other  fact  is,  that  the  faith  is  counted,  reckoned,  im- 
puted to  him  ^vliose  personal  act  it  is.  This  is  what  is  imputed 
to  Abraham,  to  the  Jew,  to  the  Gentile.  In  neither  case  is  there  the 
slightest  intimation  of  an  imputation  of  any  personal  act  of  another. 

For  what  is  faith  imputed?    For  righteousness.    This       for  right- 
Is  the  only  answer,  because  such  is  the  uniform  state-       eocsness. 
ment  of  the  Scriptures.     But  what  is  the  meaning  of  righteousness, 

'  Rom.  iii,  23.  « Rom.  iii,  29,  30  ;  Gal.  iii,  8,  22. 

'Rom.  iv,  3,  5,  9,  22,  24.  ''Rom.  iv,  3.  '  Rom.  iv,  5,  9. 


320  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

as  the  term  is  here  used  ?  Only  two  views  are  worthy  of  any 
consideration :  one,  that  faith  itself  constitutes  a  proper  and  real 
personal  righteousness;  the  other,  that  righteousness  means  the 
legal  state  consequent  upon  the  remission  of  sin  on  the  condition 
of  faith. 

Faith  itself  cannot  constitute  a  true  personal  righteousness,  such 
FAITH  ITSELF,  as  couslsts  lu  a  complete  fulfillment  of  personal  duties. 
NOT  THE  Considered  as  a  duty,  faith  could  fulfill  only  its  own 

RIGHTEOUS" 

NESS.  obligalion,  and  therefore  could  not  answer  for  any  other 

duty.  It  never  can  constitute  the  sum  of  Christian  obedience.  Such 
a  view  would  infinitely  exalt  it  even  above  the  high  place  which  the 
Scriptures  assign  it  in  the  economy  of  the  Christian  life.  Besides, 
the  relation  of  faith  to  righteousness  is  entirely  overlooked.  In  the 
view  of  St.  Paul  faith  is  simply  the  condition  of  righteousness, 
whereas  in  this  view  it  constitutes  the  righteousness.  Also,  it  takes 
us  entirely  away  from  the  atonement  in  Christ  as  the  only  ground 
of  justification,  and  from  the  remission  of  sin  as  the  vital  fact 
thereof. 

The  truth  of  the  question  lies  in  the  other  view,  that  the  right- 
eousness for  which  faith  is  imputed  means  the  legal  state 

THE  CONDITION  .       f  .  '^ 

OF  RIGHTEOUS-  couscquent  upon  the  remission  oi  sm.  In  an  earlier 
*'^^^'  part  of  this  discussion  it  was  shown  that  Justification 

and  remission  of  sins  mean  the  same  thing.  We  further  find  that 
the  imputation  of  righteousness  has  the  same  meaning  as  the  other 
two  facts.  The  proof  of  this  oneness  of  meaning  in  the  three  forms 
of  expression  lies  in  a  single  passage,  wherein  are  set  forth,  in  one 
Bentence  and  without  any  real  distinction,  the  righteousness  of  God, 
justification,  and  remission  of  sins,  as  conferred  on  the  same  condi- 
tion of  faith  in  Christ.'  The  imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness 
is  thus  easily  understood.  It  means  simply  that  faith  is  accepted 
as  the  condition  of  justification  or  the  remission  of  sin,  whereby 
the  believing  sinner  is  set  right  with  God. 

3.  Faith  in  Christ  the  Condition. — The  fact  here  stated  has 
already  appeared,  but  should  be  more  fully  presented. 

In  a  general  view  faith  in  Christ  is  the  condition  of  justification. 
FAITH  IN  "  ^^^  iiow  the  righteousness  of  God  without  the  law  is 

CHRIST.  manifested,  .  .  .  even  the  righteousness  of  God  which  is 

by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe. 
The  righteousness  of  God,  as  here  presented,  means  the  righteous- 
ness which  he  confers  in  our  justification ;  and  it  is  conferred  on 
the  condition  of  faith  in  Christ.^ 

'  Horn,  iii,  21-26.  2  Ro^.  iii^  31^  22, 

3  For  the  same  truth,  see  Gal.  iii,  21-24 :  Phil,  iii,  8,  9. 


•     JUSTIFICATION.  321 

In  a  definite  view,  faith  in  the  redeeming  Christ  is  the  condition 
of  justification.     "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  :  whom       dkkming 
God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith       '^""•st. 
in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins 
that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  to  declare,  I  say,  at 
this  time  his  righteousness:  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier 
of  him  which  believeth   in  Jesus. " '      This   one    text  may  here 
suffice,  as  it  expresses  so  formally  and  fully  the  truth  which  we 
stated.     Justification  or  the  remission  of  sin  is  through  faith  in 
the  blood  of  atonement,  or  in  the   redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus.     This  accords  with  our  whole  view  of  the  sub-      the  whole 
ject.     Christ  is  a  Saviour  only  through  an  atonement      "*''ew. 
in  his  blood.     So  is  he  offered  in  the  Gospel  as  the  Saviour  of  the 
lost.     The  assurance  of  salvation  is  to  all  who  accept  him  in  faith; 
but  the  faith  which  is  unto  salvation  must  accept  him  as  the  Sav- 
iour through  an  atonement  in  his  blood. 

4.  Nature  of  the  Faith. — As  justification  is  a  blessing  distinct 
and  definite  in  kind,  so  the  faith  on  which  it  is  attained  must  be 
specific  in  its  form.  We  shall  the  more  readily  reach  its  true  nature 
by  carefully  noting  the  leading  distinctions  of  faith.  Preparatory 
to  this,  however,  it  is  important  to  observe  what  is  common  to  faith 
in  all  its  forms. 

There  can  be  no  faith  without  something  objective  to  the  mind 
in  the  form  of  reality  or  truth.  There  must  be  such  ^^^  common 
reality  or  truth  in  the  mental  apprehension,  however  element  of 
that  apprehension  may  be  mistaken.  All  faith  that  is 
properly  such  must  have  respect  to  evidence — such  evidence  as  veri- 
fies to  the  mind  the  reality  or  truth  of  what  is  believed.  So  far 
faith  is  one  in  kind,  whatever  the  differences  of  its  objects.  That 
which  is  believed  may  be  purely  secular,  something  in  the  plane  of 
geography,  or  history,  or  science  ;  or  it  may  be  some  profound 
truth  of  religion  respecting  God  or  Christianity  ;  but  whatever  the 
object,  faith  in  its  truth  must  have  a  ground  in  evidence.  Such  is 
a  law  of  faith  in  all  its  spheres. 

There  is  another  view  of  faith  in  which  profound  distinctions 
arise  from  differences  in  its  objective  truths.      Thus 

t  .        .  DISTINCTIONS. 

arise  the  distinctions  of  faith  as  intellectual,  practical, 
and  fiducial. 

Many  truths  have  for  us  no  practical  concern  in  any  matter  of 
either  duty  or  welfare.  Such  are  many  facts  of  history,  of  geogra- 
phy, of  botany,  of  zoology,  of  astronomy;  and,  because  they  are  such, 

'  Rom.  iii,  24-26. 


322  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

faith  in  them,  however  sure,  can  never  rise  above  an  intellectual 
INTELLECTUAL  f omi.  Our  faith  in  such  facts  or  truths  never  can  become 
FAITH.  practical,  because  they  possess  nothing  which  should 

influence  our  conduct ;  never  can  become  fiducial,  because  they 
proffer  no  relief  of  any  need.  Here  then  is  a  limitation  of  faith  to 
a  merely  intellectual  form,  which  is  determined  by  the  character  of 
its  objective  truths. 

There  are  other  truths  which  deeply  concern  us  in  respect  to  both 
PRACTICAL  our  duty  and  our  well-being.  Faith  in  such  truths  may 
FAITH.  ]jQ  strongly  practical,  because  they  embody  weighty  rea- 

sons or  motives  of  practical  concern.  In  such  a  characterization  of 
faith  as  practical,  it  is  surely  not  meant  that  it  is  any  less  intel- 
lectual than  that  form  which  we  have  so  characterized.  The  real 
distinction  is  from  a  difference  in  the  objects  of  faith,  which  in 
the  one  case  limit  it  to  an  intellectual  form,  and  in  the  other  lift 
iLLusTRA-  it  into  a  practical  form.  There  are  many  illustrations 
TioNs.  of  such  a  faith  in  both  sacred  and  secular  history.     Out 

of  the  former  we  may  instance  the  faith  of  Noah.  God  made 
known  to  him  the  coming  destruction  of  the  world  by  the  flood ; 
and,  further,  that  by  the  building  of  an  ark  he  should  save  himself 
and  family.'  Noah  believed  these  divine  communications,  and  the 
practical  results  followed  :  "By  faith  Noah,  being  warned  of  God 
of  things  not  seen  as  yet,  moved  with  fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the 
saving  of  his  house.'"'  His  faith  found  in  the  truths  which  it  em- 
braced the  sufficient  reasons  or  motives  for  his  work.  This  in- 
stance can  hardly  fail  to  suggest  others.  Indeed,  it  is  this  practical 
element  of  faith  which,  more  than  any  thing  else,  finds  its  illustra- 
tion in  this  remarkable  chapter.  Such  is  the  practical  power  of 
faith.  Such  motives  as  may  strongly  influence  conduct  lie  in  the 
truths  believed,  and  through  faith  they  become  practical  forces  in 
the  life.     The  very  nature  of  these  forces  explains  the 

POWER  OF  "J  /-^        •       ■  r.    •    1  rm   • 

CHRISTIAN  transcendent  practical  power  of  Christian  faith.  This 
FAITH.  power  is  so  great  because  the  practical  motives  embodied 

in  the  truths-  of  Christianity  infinitely  transcend  all  other  motives 
which  may  influence  human  conduct. 

Then  in  the  objective  truth  which  the  faith  embraces  there  may 
FIDUCIARY  be  deeply  needed  help,  and  also  the  most  assuring  trust- 
FAiTH.  worthiness  ;  in  which  case  faith  may  take  the  form  of 

confidence  or  trust.  We  thus  reach  what  is  distinctive  of  the  faith 
JUSTIFYING  which  is  unto  justification.  In  the  approach  to  its  ex- 
FAiTH.  ercise  there  is  a  profound  sense  of  need.     There  is  the 

sense  of  sin  and  peril ;  and  with  it  the  sense  of  an  utter  self-help- 
'  Gen.  vi,  13-22.  « Heb.  xi,  7. 


JUSTIFICATION.  323 

IcBsness.  In  the  stress  of  sueli  an  exigency  the  soul  looks  to  Christ 
and  bellevingly  apprehends  in  him  the  salvation  which  it  so  much 
needs.  It  apprehends,  not  only  the  fullness  of  his  grace,  but  also 
its  freeness  ;  not  only  that  he  is  mighty  to  save,  but  also  that  he 
graciously  waits  to  save.  Here,  then,  is  the  most  assuring  trust- 
worthiness. The  act  of  trust  is  still  wanting,  but  the  ^hk  act  ov 
80ul  is  ready  for  it.  Now  in  the  apprehension  of  Christ  trust. 
in  his  atonement,  and  in  the  fullness  and  freeness  of  his  grace,  the 
soul  trustingly  rests  in  him  for  the  needed  salvation,  and  tliereon 
receives  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  This  is  justification  by  faith.  And 
such  is  the  distinctive  character  of  the  faith  which  is  unto  justifica- 
tion. 

While  faith  is  the  one  and  only  condition  of  justification,  yet  a 
true  repentance  is  always  presupposed,  because  only  in  repentance 
such  a  mental  state  can  the  proper  faith  be  exercised,  i'rksupposed. 
An  impenitent  soul  cannot  properly  trust  in  Christ  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin.  In  such  a  state  there  can  be  no  real  sense  of  its  need, 
and  therefore  no  possibility  of  the  act  of  trust.  Nor  can  it  be  con- 
sistent with  either  the  holiness  of  God  or  the  requirements  of  his 
moral  government  that  he  should  forgive  an  impenitent  soul. 
The  spirit  of  impenitence  is  at  once  the  spirit  of  self-justification 
witix  respect  to  past  sins  and  the  very  essence  of  rebellion  against 
God.  The  forgiveness  of  such  a  soul  would  be,  in  effect,  a  free 
license  to  future  sinning.  Before  the  gracious  act  of  pardon  there 
must  be  a  true  contrition  for  past  sins,  a  godly  sorrow  which  work- 
eth  repentance  unto  salvation.' 

Justification  by  faith  is  a  provision  of  the  divine  economy  of  sal- 
vation which  admirably  meets  the  pressing  need  of  a  admirable 
sinful  race.  It  is  the  only  provision  which  can  meet  adaptation. 
such  need.  There  is  no  real  redemption  from  sin,  nor  entrance 
into  a  true  spiritual  life,  without  a  prior  consciousness  of  sin.  At 
the  very  beginning,  therefore,  the  sinner  must  come  to  the  sense  of 
a  sinful  and  lost  condition.  What  now  can  meet  the  exigencies  of 
his  case  ?  You  may  tell  him  to  mend  his  life  for  the  future  ;  but 
in  the  depths  of  his  soul  is  the  sense  of  an  utter  helplessness  for 
such  amendment,  and  also  the  sense  of  demerit  on  account  of  past 
sins,  for  which  such  amendment,  even  if  it  were  possible,  could 
make  no  atonement.  Nothing  that  you  can  advise  him  the  hoik  of 
to  do,  nothing  that  you  can  offer  him,  save  Christ,  can  kxigexcy. 
meet  his  necessity.  He  is  consciously  a  perishing,  helpless  sinner, 
and  from  the  depths  of  his  soul  there  is  a  cry  for  help.  Now  offer 
him  Christ  in  his  atonement,  and  an  instant  forgiveness  and  salva- 

1  3  Cor.  vii,  10. 


324  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

tion  through  faith  in  his  grace,  and  you  thoroughly  meet  his 
necessities.  The  fact  has  been  verified  by  innumerable  happy  ex- 
periences. 

It  is  only  very  shallow  thinking  that   can  object  to   such  an 
economy  as  opposed  to  the  interests  of  morality.     The 

"VERY  SHAL-  J  ±  ±  J 

LOW  THINK-  deep  sense  of  sin,  the  genuine  repentance,  the  spirit  of 
^^^-  consecration  to  a  good  life  in  the  service  of  God  as  the 

prerequisite  of  forgiveness,  the  known  necessity  of  a  good  life  in 
order  to  the  retention  of  the  justified  state,  the  grateful  love  for 
the  great  salvation  so  graciously  provided  and  conferred — all  com- 
bine in  the  enforcement  of  the  highest  form  of  Christian  morality. 
The  question  of  practical  results  is  confidently  appealed  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  evangelical  Churches,  wherein  great  prominence  is  given 
to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  No  system  of  ethics  apart 
from  Christianity,  nor  any  unevangelical  form  of  Christianity,  lifts 
up  so  many  into  a  truly  good  life. 

5.  Harmony  of  Paul  and  James. — On  the  question  of  justifica- 
A  SEEMING  tion  they  are  in  seeming  opposition.  We  cite  a  single 
OPPOSITION.  text  from  each  :  from  Paul :  "  Therefore  we  conclude 
that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law ; " ' 
from  James  :  "Ye  see  then  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified, 
and  not  by  faith  only.'"^  In  each  instance  the  text  gives  the  con- 
clusion of  the  author  after  a  discussion  of  the  question,  and  there- 
fore stands  as  a  formal  statement  of  his  doctrine.  There  is  a  fur- 
ther noticeable  fact,  that  each  finds  the  illustration  and  proof  of  his 
doctrine  in  the  life  of  Abraham.  But  this  fact,  instead  of  perplex- 
ing the  question  of  consistency  between  them,  opens  the  way  to  an 
easy  reconciliation. 

The  complete  reconciliation  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  are  treating 
COMPLETE  distinct  forms  of  justification  :  Paul,  that  in  the  for- 
HARMONY.  giveness  of  sins  ;  James,  that  in  actual  and  approved 
obedience.  The  former  is  by  faith  without  works  ;  the  latter  by 
works  of  obedience,  which  spring  from  a  living  faith  as  their  prac- 
tical source.  These  statements  are  fully  verified  by  the  references 
DOCTRINE  OP  to  Abraham.  That  of  Paul  is  to  his  faith  in  the  great 
PACL.  promise  of  God  respecting  the  birth  of  Isaac,  which  faith 

was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.*  No  doubt  the  promise  of 
Isaac  infolded  a  promise  of  the  Messiah.  This  is  the  instance 
DOCTRINE  OF  wlilch  Paul  adduccs  as  at  once  an  illustration  and  a 
JAMES.  proof  of  his  doctrine  of    justification  without  works ; 

but  a  justification  in  the  sense  of  forgiveness.''     The  reference  of 

'  Eom.  iii,  38.  2  James  ii,  24. 

3  Gen.  XV,  3-6.  4  ^^^   j^^  o-o  :  Gal.  iii,  6-8. 


JUSTIFICATION.  825 

James  is  to  the  offering  up  of  Isaac'  But  this  event  occurred  some 
twenty-five  or  thirty  years  after  that  referred  to  by  Paul,  and  is  so 
thoroughly  different  that  it  well  might  be  adduced  for  the  illus- 
tration and  proof  of  a  very  different  kind  of  justification.  James 
does  so  adduce  it :  "  Was  not  Abraham  our  Father  Justified  by 
works,  when  he  had  offered  Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar  ?  "  ^  Now 
between  two  kinds  of  justification  so  thoroughly  ^o  contra- 
different  there  can  be  no  doctrinal  contradiction.  For  diction. 
every  such  contradiction  there  must  be  opposing  affirmations  re- 
Bpecting  the  same  thing  ;  but  when  Paul  declares  that  we  are  jus- 
tified by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law,  and  James,  that  we 
are  justified  by  works,  and  not  by  faith  only,  they  are  not  speaking 
of  the  same  thing,  and  therefore  there  cannot  be  any  contradiction 
between  them.  Such  is  the  usual  mode  of  reconciling  them.  The 
mode  is  valid,  and  the  reconciliation  complete. 

However,  the  interpretation  of  James  often  falls  short  of  his  true 
doctrine.     Such  is  the  case  when  the  interpretation  is 

^  .  TRUE    INTER- 

that  we  are  justified  by  works,  as  works  are  the  evidence  pretation  of 
of  a  true  and  living  faith.  This  must  mean  that  we  •'^"^^• 
are  justified  by  faith,  while  works  are  allowed  no  direct  part  therein. 
The  instance  of  Abraham  is  often  so  interpreted.  But  more  was 
required  of  him  than  faith,  and  more  was  rendered,  even  the 
offering  up  of  his  own  son  ;  and  this  act  of  obedience  was  of  direct 
account  in  his  justification,  and  not  simply  as  an  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  his  faith.  Obedience  answers  to  duty  as  really  as 
faith,  and  is  even  more  definitely  a  fact  of  personal  righteousness. 
The  justification  of  Abraham,  as  maintained  by  James,  was  really 
forensic  in  its  character ;  that  is,  it  was  God^s  judicial  approval  of 
his  personal  character.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  : 
*'  For  now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast  not  with- 
held thy -son,  thine  only  son,  from  me."  ^  That "  thou  fearest  God  " 
means  a  personal  character  which  God's  judgment  approved.  He 
so  approved  this  special  instance  of  Abraham's  obedience.*  The 
obedience  was  itself  righteous.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  James  and 
the  sense  of  Scripture. 

Faber  :  The  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Justification ;  Hitachi:  History  of  the  Chris- 
tian Doctrine  of  Justification  and  Reconciliation  /  Calvin  :  Institutes,  book  iii, 
chaps,  xi-xviii  ;  Owen  :  The  Doctrine  of  Justification,  Works  (Goold's),  vol.  v  ; 
Buchanan  :  The  Doctrine  of  Justification  ;  Alexander  :  Faith,  v,  vi  ;  Shedd  : 
Dogmatic  Theology,  Soteriology,  chap,  v  ;  Hodge  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  iii, 
chap,  xvii  ;  Moehler  :  Symbolism,  book  i,  part  i,  chap,  iii  ;  Burnet :  The  XXXIX 


23 


'  Gen.  xxii,  1-12.  "James  ii,  21. 

"Gen.  xxii,  12.  "» Gen.  xxii,  16-18. 


326  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Articles,  Article  XI ;  Mcllvaine  :  Justification  by  Faith  ;  Newman  :  The  Doc- 
trine of  Justification ;  Heurtly  :  Justification,  Bampton  Lectures,  1845 ; 
Schmid:  Doctrinal  Theology  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  §  42  ;  Harkey  : 
Justification  by  Faith  ;  Wardlaw  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  678-727  ; 
Wesley  :  Sermons,  Y,  VI,  XX  ;  Works,  vol.  vi,  pp.  100-134  ;  Watson  :  Theo- 
logical Institutes,  Part  Second,  chap,  xxiii ;  Hare  :  Scriptural  Doctrine  of 
Justification  ;  Bunting  :  Sermons,  vol.  ii,  pp.  60-84  ;  Davies :  Treatise  on  Jus- 
tification ;  Curry  :  Fragments,  viii,  ix ;  Merrill :  Aspects  of  Christian  Experi- 
ence, chaps,  iv-vii. 


REGENERATION.  32: 


CHAPTER  VI. 
BEOENEBATION. 

While  regeneration  is  closely  related  to  justification,  there  are 
real  points  of  difference  between  them.  They  differ  widely  in  the 
grounds  of  their  necessity.  The  necessity  for  justification  lies  in 
the  fact  of  guilt,  while  the  necessity  for  regeneration  lies  in  the  de- 
pravity of  our  nature.  Hence  they  must  fulfill  different  offices 
in  the  work  of  our  salvation.  It  is  the  office  of  justification  to 
cancel  our  guilt,  while  it  is  the  office  of  regeneration  to  relation  to 
renew  or  purify  our  moral  nature.  Yet  in  other  facts  jostification. 
the  two  are  closely  related.  They  are  coincident  in  time.  There 
is  no  reason  for  any  chronological  separation  ;  not  even  where  the 
consciousness  of  the  moral  change  wrought  by  regeneration  is  a 
gradual  attainment.  Further,  we  are  justified  and  regenerated  on 
the  same  act  of  faith.  The  two  great  blessings  are  not  separately 
offered  to  separate  acts  of  faith;  they  are  offered  together  as  insep- 
arable blessings  of  the  salvation  in  Christ,  and  so  are  received  on 
one  and  the  same  act  of  faith. 

Regeneration,  like  justification,  is  a  vital  part  of  Christian  soteri- 
ology.  It  must  be  such,  since  native  depravity  is  a  real-  y^^^  p^jj^  ^p 
ity,  and  regeneration  a  necessity  to  a  truly  spiritual  life,  soteriology. 
It  follows  that  a  truthful  doctrine  of  regeneration  must  be  pro- 
foundly important.  Yet  it  is  one  respecting  which  error  has  widely 
prevailed,  and  greatly  to  the  detriment  of  the  Christian  life.  How- 
ever, as  between  evangelical  systems,  the  doctrine  of  regeneration 
has  been  far  less  in  issue  than  that  of  justification,  mostly  because 
it  is  less  directly  concerned  in  the  doctrinal  view  of  the  atonement. 

I.  The  Natuke  of  Regeneration". 

1.  In  the  Light  of  the  Scriptures. — The  nature  of  regeneration 
must  be  studied  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures.  The  true  doctrine 
must  be  found  in  the  meaning  of  the  terms  and  facts  wherein  the 
gracious  work  is  expressed. 

The  question  is  not  open  to  a  philosophical  interpretation,  nor 

to  any  purely  scientific  treatment.     The  reason  is,  that 

^        .  '  not  opkn  to 

we  cannot  m  any  such  mode  reach  the  facts  which  vi-     philosophic 
tally  concern  the  doctrine.    For  instance,  we  cannot  thus     treatment. 
reach  the  nature  of  depravity,  in  which  lies  the  necessity  for  regen- 


328  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

eration.  We  know  that  it  is  a  state  of  our  sensuous  and  moral 
nature,  and  we  know  its  characteristic  tendency  to  evil ;  but  just 
what  it  is  in  itself  we  cannot  know.  Yet  the  nature  of  depravity 
as  a  subjective  state  must  largely  determine  the  nature  of  regen- 
eration. Therefore,  as  we  cannot  in  any  purely  scientific  or  philo- 
sophic mode  know  the  nature  of  depravity  itself,  neither  can  we  in 
any  such  mode  discover  the  inner  nature  of  regeneration. 

Some  have  thought  the  subject  more  open  to  rational  treatment 
NO  CLEARER  IN  ^u  thc  ground  of  a  trichotomic  anthropology  than  on 
TRICHOTOMY,  thc  dlchotomic.  We  do  not  see  any  clearing  of  the 
question  in  this  view.  Trichotomy  is  not  an  established  truth  ; 
and  so  long  as  it  remains  uncertain  in  itself  it  can  render  little  serv- 
ice in  the  interpretation  of  any  doctrine.  Further,  trichotomy 
effects  no  change  in  the  real  question,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  our 
thinking.  No  class  of  sensuous  or  moral  phenomena,  as  now 
known,  is  eliminated  or  in  the  least  modified  ;  no  new  class  is  in- 
troduced. Nothing  is  other  than  it  was  for  our  thinking.  Hence 
the  assumption  of  three  distinct  natures  in  man — of  a  psychic  nat- 
ure intermediate  to  the  physical  and  mental,  and  additional  to  them 
— cannot  clear  the  way  to  any  direct  insight  into  the  nature  of  de- 
pravity as  a  subjective  state.  We  are  just  as  far  short  of  any  such 
insight  as  we  were  on  the  ground  of  a  dichotomic  anthropology. 

Not  a  few  have  been  pleased  with  Henry  Drummond's  treatment 
TREATMENT  BY  of  regcncration.  This  is  really  the  subject,  although 
DRUMMOND.  j^jg  Qwn  toplcal  word  is  biogenesis.'  The  treatment  is 
admirable  in  literary  quality,  and  attractive  in  scientific  cast.  The 
laws  of  biogenesis  on  which  his  doctrine  is  constructed  are  thoroughly 
valid.  Life  is  begotten  only  of  life.  Biogenesis  holds  the  ground 
securely  against  abiogenesis.  There  is  no  life  from  the  lifeless. 
We  see  no  reason  to  question  other  laws  set  forth  :  that  the  source 
of  life  must  answer  for  the  kind  or  grade  of  that  which  it  produces; 
and  that  a  lower  form  of  life  can  be  lifted  up  into  a  higher  form 
only  through  the  power  of  the  higher.  On  the  ground  of  such 
principles  only  a  divine  source  can  answer  for  a  truly  spiritual  life 
in  man.  This  is  the  necessity  for  regeneration.  Man  must  be 
born  from  above;  must  be  born  of  God.  However,  the  treatment 
is  new  only  in  its  scientific  cast  and  terminology,  and  in  the  appli- 
cation of  the  laws  of  biogenesis  to  the  questions  of  regeneration. 
That  regeneration  is  necessary  to  a  truly  spiritual  life,  and  that  it 
is  possible  only  through  the  divine  agency,  are  truths  long  familiar 
to  our  evangelical  theology,  and  widely  and  effectively  preached 
from  many  pulpits. 

'  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World :  Biogenesis. 


REGENERATION.  329 

But  the  laws  of  biogenesis,  as  here  applied,  lead  into  serious 
error  respecting  the  real  necessity  for  regeneration,  erroneous 
According  to  these  laws,  as  here  set  forth,  that  neces-  implications. 
sity  must  have  been  original  to  the  constitution  of  man;  while  the 
real  necessity  lies  in  a  corruption  of  human  nature  consequent  to 
the  Adamic  fall.  There  is  in  Drummond  no  proper  recognition  of 
this  ground.  Indeed,  it  could  not  be  made  to  chime  with  his  doc- 
trine. Nor  do  his  principles  require  either  the  atonement  in  Christ 
or  the  special  mission  and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  which  it 
provides.  It  is  true  that  in  his  treatment  there  is  frequent  recog- 
nition of  both  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  source  of  the  new 
spiritual  life,  but  this  fact  cannot  affect  the  truth  of  our  position; 
for  nothing  in  the  original  constitution  of  man  could  require  the 
grace  of  a  redemptive  economy  for  its  relief.  If  in  his  original 
constitution  man  was  placed  in  the  plane  of  a  purely  natural  life, 
then,  according  to  the  laws  of  biogenesis,  he  would  need  a  spiritual 
endowment  which  only  divinity  itself  could  confer,  in  order  to  a 
truly  spiritual  life;  but  he  could  not  need  the  grace  of  a  redemptive 
economy  as  the  provisional  ground  of  such  endowment.  These  in- 
evitable implications  mean  some  serious  error  in  the  doctrine  of 
Drummond.  Regeneration,  whether  in  respect  to  its  nature  or 
necessity,  cannot  be  explained  on  the  ground  of  "natural  law  in 
the  spiritual  world." 

2.  Representative  Terms. — There  is  a  class  of  Scripture  terms  in 
which  regeneration,  or  the  gracious  work  which  it  represents,  is 
expressed  as  a  new  birth.  We  may  instance  the  following:  born 
again; '  born  of  God;"  born  of  the  Spirit.*  These  several  forms  of 
expression  have  the  same  meaning  respecting  the  nature 

of  regeneration.     When  we  reach  the  deeper  principle 
of  their  interpretation  we  shall  find  that  meaning  very  clear  and 
full.     There  are  other  forms  of  expression  which  con- 
tain  the  same  truth  respecting  regeneration,  but  we  get 
their  full  meaning  only  as  we  read  them  in  the  light  of  the  truly 
representative  terms.     With  such  limitation,  they  still  render  val- 
uable service  in  setting  forth  the  true  nature  of  regeneration. 
However,  the  terms  which  set  forth  this  great  moral  change  in  the 
light  of  a  new  birth  are  properly  designated  the  representative 
terms.     They  are  the  ground  of  the  specific  term  regeneration — 
TTaXtyyevenia — the  one  in  common  theological  use  for  the  expression 
of  the  doctrine. 

3.  Analogical  Interpretation. — In  these  forms  of  expression  there 

•  John  iii,  3,  7 ;  1  Pet.  i,  33.  *  John  i,  13  ;  1  John  iii,  9 ;  iv,  7 ;  v,  1. 

^  John  iii,  5,  8. 

23  ' 


330  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

is  a  comparison  of  spiritual  regeneration  with  natural  generation  or 
birth.  The  comparison  implies  some  analogy  between  the  things 
thus  compared.  Accordingly,  some  attempt  an  interpretation  of 
POINTS  OF  regeneration  on  the  ground  of  such  analogy.  It  is 
coMPARisoNo  easy  to  institute  points  of  comparison ;  but  if  we  stop 
short  of  a  really  interpreting  principle,  little  light  is  gained  for 
the  real  question.  Under  these  figurative  expressions,  or  in  natural 
generation  and  birth,  we  may  find  the  inception  of  a  new  life,  a  new 
life  in  the  mode  of  derivation,  and  a  transition  into  a  new  mode  of 
life.  These  are  facts  of  natural  generation  and  birth ;  and  it  is 
easy  to  find  corresponding  facts  in  regeneration.  It  surely  means 
the  inception  of  a  new  life,  and  a  new  life  by  derivation  or  com- 
munication, and  a  new  mode  of  life. 

In  this  manner  regeneration  is  interpreted,  but  the  interpretation 
THE  VIEW  su-  is  superficial,  and  fails  to  give  us  any  clear  insight  into 
PERFiciAL.  its  real  nature.  The  failure  arises  from  the  fact  that 
these  points  of  comparison  mean  nothing  in  themselves  for  the 
nature  of  the  new  life  received  in  regeneration.  They  are  too 
broadly  applicable  for  any  such  definite  meaning.  The  same  facts 
are  true  of  all  orders  of  propagated  life  ;  just  as  true  of  the  lion  as 
of  the  lamb ;  just  as  true  in  the  animal  plane  as  in  the  human. 
These  points  of  analogy  lead  us  up  to  the  one  fact  which  is  full  of 
meaning  for  the  nature  of  regeneration,  but  fall  short  of  it,  and 
therefore  fail  to  give  us  any  clear  insight  into  that  nature. 

4.  Deeper  Principle  of  Interpretation. — Underlying  the  points 
THE  DEEPER  ^f  comparisou  usually  presented  in  the  analogical  treat- 
FACT.  ment,  there  is  a  deeper  fact  which  gives  us  the  true 

nature  of  regeneration.  It  is  the  fact  that  the  offspring  is  in  the 
likeness  of  the  parentage.  This  principle  rules  in  all  the  forms  of 
propagated  life.  It  is  the  determining  law  of  species.  It  here 
Buffices  that  we  merely  state  this  law,  as  it  was  sufficiently  discussed 
in  our  anthropology.  We  there  found  it  a  valid  and  sufficient 
ground  for  the  genetic  transmission  of  depravity  from  Adam  down 
through  the  race.  This  is  the  principle  which  opens  the  clearer 
view  of  regeneration.  As  by  natural  generation  we  inherit  from 
the  progenitors  of  the  race  a  corruption  of  the  moral  nature,  so  by 
the  new  birth  we  receive  the  impress  and  likeness  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

This  is  our  interpreting  principle.     Nor  is  it  fetched  from  afar, 

but  is  right  at  hand  in  the  classical  passage  on  regen- 

RiGHT  AT         eration  :   ''  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ; 

^^°-  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit   is  spirit."'     In 

the  first  part  the  truth  is  deeper  than  the  derivation  of  a  body 

'  John  iii,  6. 


REGENERATION.  XU 

of  flesh  in  the  form  and  likeness  of  the  parental  body ;  it  means 
the  inheritance  of  a  corrupt  nature.  This  was  shown  in  our  an- 
thropology. In  this  corruption  of  nature  lies  the  necessity  for  the 
new  birth.  It  was  on  the  ground  of  this  fact  that  Christ  said  to 
Nicodemus:  "'  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee.  Ye  must  be  born 
again."  But  such  a  necessity  can  be  met  only  by  a  divine  opera- 
tion within  the  moral  nature  which  shall  purify  it  and  transform  it 
into  the  moral  likeness  of  the  divine.  All  this  is  in  the  meaning 
of  the  words  of  Christ:  "That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit" — spirit,  not  essentially,  but  in  the  sense  of  a  spiritual  or 
holy  quality.  As  the  depravity  of  the  original  parentage  is  trans- 
mitted through  natural  generation,  so  through  regeneration  we  are 
transformed  into  the  moral  likeness  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  meets 
the  necessity  for  regeneration.  There  is  no  other  way  in  which  it 
can  be  met.  Thus  we  find  the  real  meaning  of  being  born  of  the 
Spirit. 

The  nature  of  the  regenerate  state  is  thus  manifest.  It  is  a  state 
of  subjective  holiness.  We  state  the  characteristic  or  the  regkx- 
predominant  fact,  without  reference  to  the  proper  dis-  ^^^™  state. 
tinction  between  regeneration  and  entire  sanctification.  It  must 
be  a  state  of  subjective  holiness  because  it  is  the  result  of  an  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  as  really  transforms  the  soul  into  the 
moral  likeness  of  himself  as  the  laws  of  nature  determine  the  like- 
ness of  the  offspring  to  its  parentage. 

There  is  no  mystery  in  this  doctrine  which  should  in  the  least 
discredit  it  with  any  who  believe  in  God.  Just  what  it  no  discredit- 
Is  in  the  inner  nature  of  a  mineral,  a  plant,  or  an  ani-  ing  mvstery. 
mal  which  determines  its  peculiar  cast,  we  do  not  know ;  but  God 
knows,  and  it  was  easy  for  him  to  so  determine  the  nature  in  each. 
So  did  he  make  man,  even  in  his  own  image ;  and,  after  he  has 
fallen  into  a  corrupt  state,  he  can  renew  him  in  lioliness  after  his 
own  image.  If  this  is  not  possible,  no  agency  of  God  is  possible  in 
either  creation  or  providence. 

5.  Other  Forms  of  Presentation. — Kegeneration,  or  that  moral 
renovation  which  it  represents,  is  expressed  in  other  forms  of 
thought,  but  the  deeper  idea  of  a  moral  transformation  into  the 
likeness  of  the  divine  holiness  is  ever  present.  A  few  instances  will 
answer  for  illustration  ;  and  we  shall  thus  bring  other  texts  into 
service  in  setting  forth  the  nature  of  regeneration. 

"  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean  :  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your  idols, 

*^  CLEANSING* 

will  I  cleanse  you.     A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you, 

and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  :  and  I  will  take  away  the 


332  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh."' 
Here  is  a  state  of  moral  corruption  and  of  insensibility  to  spiritual 
things.  The  fllthiness  and  the  heart  of  stone  can  mean  nothing 
less.  Such  is  the  subject  of  the  moral  renovation.  The  renovation 
is  a  puriflcation,  and  the  inception  of  a  new  spiritual  life.  Such  is 
the  meaning  of  the  sprinkling  with  clean  water,  the  cleansing,  and 
the  new  heart  and  new  spirit.     Such  is  the  work  of  regeneration. 

"  Therefore  if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature  :  old 
NEW  GREAT-  thlugs  arc  passed  away  ;  behold,  all  things  are  become 
URE.  new."'     To  be  in  Christ,  as  here  expressed,  is  to  be  in 

living  union  with  him.  This  is  the  state  of  an  actual  salvation, 
and  the  same  as  the  regenerate  state.  To  be  thus  in  Christ  is  to  be 
a  new  creature,  or  a  new  creation.  By  such  a  new  creation  we  are 
transformed  into  a  state  of  holiness  like  unto  the  primitive  holiness 
wherein  man  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  God.  This  is  the  same 
deep  sense  of  regeneration. 

"  That  ye  put  off  concerning  the  former  conversation  the  old 
man,  which  is  corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts  ; 
and  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind  ;  and  that  ye 
put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness."'  The  old  man  is  both  a  corrupt  nature  and  a 
vicious  habit  of  life.  The  new  man  is  the  opposite  in  both  re- 
spects. This  is  plain  from  the  contrast  in  which  they  are  placed. 
It  is  manifest  in  the  fact  that  the  new  man  is  created  in  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness.  The  old  man  and  the  new  are  such  that 
the  former  can  be  put  off  and  the  latter  put  on  only  through  a  re- 
newal in  the  spirit  of  our  mind.  This  must  be  a  thorough  moral 
transformation.  It  is  such  in  fact,  for  it  is  being  created  anew 
in  the  image  of  God.  This  is  the  same  deep  truth  of  regeneration 
which  we  found  in  its  representative  terms.  St.  Paul  expresses  the 
same  truth  elsewhere,  and  in  very  similar  words  :  ''  Seeing  that  ye 
have  put  off  the  old  man  with  his  deeds ;  and  have  put  on  the  new 
man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that 
created  him."^ 

6.  The  JN'etc  Life. — Regeneration  is  the  ground  of  a  new  spiritual 
life,  a  life  in  righteousness.  In  the  very  nature  of  it,  as  set  forth  in 
the  Scriptures,  it  must  be  such. 

Is  it  expressed  as  a  new  birth  or  a  being  born  of  God  ?  "  If  ye 
know  that  he  is  righteous,  ye  know  that  every  one  that 

A  NFW  BIRTH  ■'    *J  »' 

doeth  righteousness  is  born  of  him."     '' Whosoever  is 
born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin."     ''  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  an- 

•  Ezek.  xxxvi,  35,  36.  '  2  Cor.  v,  17. 

'  Eph.  iv,  33-84.  '  Col.  iii,  9, 10. 


REGENERATION.  .^33 

other  :  for  love  is  of  God  ;  and  every  one  that  loveth  is  born  of  God, 
and  knoweth  God."  "For  whatsoever  is  born  of  God  lifk  after 
overcometh  the  world."  '  Or  is  regeneration  a  being  thk  spirit. 
born  of  the  Spirit  ?  "  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ 
Jesus  hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death.  .  .  .  That 
the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit.""  "But  the  fruit  of  the 
Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness,  goodness, 
faith,  meekness,  temperance:  against  such  there  is  no  law."^ 
Such  are  the  fruits  of  regeneration ;  for  the  Holy  Spirit  plants 
his  graces,  not  in  the  vicious  soil  of  the  flesh,  but  only  in  the  soul 
which  by  regeneration  is  morally  transformed  into  the  likeness  of 
himself. 

As  regeneration  is  a  new  creation  whereby  we  become  new  creat- 
ures in  Christ,  so  old  things  pass  away,  and  all  things 

A  GOOD   LIFE 

become  new  ;  a  good  life  replaces  the  evil  life.^  "For 
we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works."  * 
In  regeneration  the  old  man  is  put  off,  and  not  only  as  a  corrupt 
nature,  but  also  as  an  evil  life ;  and  the  new  man  is  put  on,  not 
only  by  the  purification  of  the  moral  nature,  but  also  in  the  habit 
of  a  new  life  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.*  Further,  regen- 
eration is  expressed  as  at  once  a  crucifixion  and  a  resur-  ^live  with 
rection  with  Christ ;  and  on  these  grounds  a  new  spirit-  christ. 
ual  life,  a  truly  Christian  life,  is  set  forth  as  both  a  privilege  and  a 
duty.'  By  such  crucifixion  we  die  to  sin  ;  and  by  such  a  resurrec- 
tion we  are  made  alive  in  Christ.  Such  is  the  deep  meaning  of  Paul 
when  he  says  :  "  I  am  crucified  with  Christ :  nevertheless  I  live  ; 
yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me." '  Only  a  truly  spiritual  or 
Christian  life  can  properly  answer  to  the  life  in  Christ  attained  in 
regeneration. 

II.  The  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
1.  Testimony  of  the  Scrijjtiires. — That  regeneration  is  attributed 
to  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  severally  is  entirely  consistent  with  its 
being  specially  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  in  this  case  as 
in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence.  These  are  specially  the 
work  of  the  Father,  and  yet  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  represented 
as  co-operative  in  both.  The  consistency  of  such  representation  lies 
in  the  unity  of  the  three  in  the  divine  Trinity.  The  case  is  the 
same  respecting  regeneration. 

'  1  John  ii,  29;  iii,  9;  iv,  7;  v,  4.         '  Rom.  viii,  2-4.         '  Gal.  v,  22,  23. 
^  2  Cor.  V,  17.  5  Eph.  ii,  10.  « Eph.  iv,  22-24  ;  Col.  iii,  9, 10. 

'  Rom.  vi,  3-14.  8  Gal.  ii,  20. 


334  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

The  classical  text  in  which  we  found  the  clearest  light  on  the 
THE  CLASSICAL  naturc  of  regeneration  is  in  itself  quite  decisive  of  the 
TEXT.  fact  that  it  is  specially  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. '    The 

same  truth  appears  in  the  fact  that  we  are  saved  "^"^by  the  washing  of 
regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  ^  Bap- 
OTHER  TEXTS.  ^.^^^  ^^^^^  exprcsscd  as  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
is  the  sign  of  an  inward  purification  which  is  efficaciously  wrought 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  are  other  texts  which  set  forth  the  same 
truth,  though  in  the  use  of  another  word — sanctification — in  place 
of  regeneration.^  This  special  work  of  the  Spirit  is  in  full  accord 
with  the  pervasive  sense  of  Scripture  respecting  his  agency  in  the 
economies  of  religion. 

2.  Immediate  Agency  of  the  Spirit. — Such  an  agency  of  the  Holy 

Spirit  should  be  emphasized  because  it  is  vital  to  the 
A  TiTAL  FACT,  ^.g^^-^y  ^j  regeueratiou  itself.  There  is  no  other  mode 
of  his  operation  whereby  the  soul  can  be  transformed  into  the 
moral  likeness  of  himself.  In  the  miracles  of  our  Lord  the  leper 
was  not  cleansed  nor  the  dead  quickened  into  life  by  the  use  of  in- 
termediate agencies  :  the  divine  power  acted  immediately  upon  the 
subject  of  the  miracle,  and  so  was  efficacious  in  its  work."  Only 
in  this  mode  can  the  Holy  Spirit  be  efficacious  in  the  regeneration 
of  the  soul. 

3.  TJie  Only  JSfficienf  Agency. — Whatever  may  be  conditional  to 
regeneration,  or  whatever  must  precede  or  accompany  it,  still  it  is 
efficaciously  wrought  solely  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  error  of  baptismal  regeneration  has  widely  prevailed.     It  is 
T  »  L    thoroughly  the  doctrine  of  Romanism;  predominantly, 
REGENERA-        of  Luthcrauism  and  Anglicanism.     But  the  effect  is  im- 
"°^'  possible  to  such  a  cause.     No  man  can  rationally  think 

it  possible  that  the  outward  application  of  water  to  the  body  should 
effect  the  interior  renovation  of  tlie  soul.  Baptism  is  the  sign  of  an 
interior  purification  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  can  have 
no  part  in  the  efficacious  agency  whereby  it  is  wrought.  It  is  true 
that  the  Scriptures  verbally  place  baptism  close  to  regeneration.^ 
In  like  manner  they  place  baptism  equally  close  to  justification  or 
the  remission  of  sins."  But  is  it  possible  in  fact,  or  can  any  one 
rationally  think  it  possible,  that  the  application  of  water  in  baptism 
should  cancel  the  guilt  of  sin?  Justification  or  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  definitely  and  only  the  act  of  God  ;  and  baptism  can  have  no  part 

'  John  iii,  5-8.  '  Tit.  iii,  5. 

'  2  Thess.  ii,  13  ;  1  Pet.  i,  2.  *  Matt,  viii,  2,  3  ;  JoTin  xi,  41-44. 

»  John  iii,  5  ;  Acts  ii,  38  ;  Eph.  v,  26  ;  Tit.  iii,  5  ;  Heb.  x,  22. 

•  Acts  ii,  38  ;  xxii,  16. 


REGENERATION.  335 

in  it,  except  as  a  sign  or  confession  of  the  faith  whereon  the  gra- 
cious forgiveness  is  granted.  Baptism  is  equally  without  efficacy  in 
itself  for  our  spiritual  regeneration. 

Some  hold  that  we  are  regenerated  by  the  power  of  the  truth. 
Such  is  the  common  rationalistic  view.     It  is  definitely 

•  n  •         THKTRCT^^■OT 

the  doctrine  of  the  Disciples,  or  Campbellites.  Some  in  regenera- 
the  fellowship  of  thoroughly  orthodox  Churches  hold  ^'^*^* 
the  same  view.'  The  fact  is  not  really  other  because  the  Scriptures 
are  designated  as  an  instrumental  agency,  nor  because  there  is  also 
set  forth  an  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  real  point  is  that  an 
efficient  agency  is  assigned  to  the  Scriptures  in  the  work  of  regen- 
eration. In  verification  of  this  position  we  cite  a  sin-  ^he  contrart 
gle  passage:  '' The  change  of  heart  in  regeneration  is  doctrine. 
produced  by  a  previous  change  of  judgment.  The  erroneous  opin- 
ions of  the  sinner  are  corrected,  and  that  corrects  his  feelings.  He 
receives  new  information,  and  that  gives  another  direction  to  his 
affections.  Plainly,  the  Bible  removes  his  delusions,  and,  in  show- 
ing him  the  true  nature  of  objects,  makes  him  love  many  things 
which  he  formerly  hated,  and  hate  many  things  which  he  formerly 
loved.  When  he  believes  its  report ;  when  he  takes  Bible  views  of 
objects,  looks  at  them  through  its  telescope,  looks  at  them  through 
its  microscope,  looks  at  them  through  its  atmosphere ;  when  he 
looks  at  God,  looks  at  Christ,  looks  at  himself,  looks  at  his  soul, 
looks  at  this  world,  looks  at  death,  looks  at  eternity  in  Bible  light, 
the  look  revolutionizes  him.  See  what  a  commotion  has  been  pro- 
duced among  the  affections  of  his  spirit,  so  soon  as  this  heavenly 
light,  altering  the  decisions  of  his  judgment,  has  dawned  on  his 
mind!  He  is  now  with  ardor  pursuing  objects  Avhich  he  formerly 
despised,  or  feared,  or  abhorred  ;  and  fleeing,  as  when  a  man  flees 
from  the  plague,  or  from  his  house  on  fire,  from  objects  which  he 
formerly  considered  harmless,  or  in  which  his  soul  delighted.  The 
Bible  light  has  disclosed  friends  where  he  thought  there  were  none 
but  foes,  and  foes  where  he  thought  there  were  none  but  friends.'^' 
This  passage  cannot  mean  any  thing  less  than  an  efficient  agency 
of  divine  truth  in  the  regeneration  of  the  soul.  And  what  is  true 
of  it  is  equally  true  of  the  fuller  discussion. 

Those  who  maintain  this  doctrine  assume  to  find  the  proof  of  it 
in  the  Scriptures  themselves.      Some  texts  are  seem-    the  alleged 
ingly  in  their  favor.'     That  divine  truth,  as  revealed  in    proofs. 
the  Scriptures,  fulfills  important  offices  in  the  attainment  of  salva- 
tion and  the  maintenance  of  a  truly  spiritual  life,  is  not  to  be 

'  Anderson  :  Regeneration,  sec.  iii.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  82,  83. 

^  John  XV,  3  ;  xvii,  17 ;  James  i,  18  ;  1  Pet.  i,  23. 


336  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

questioned.  That  it  possesses  in  itself  the  power  of  regenerating 
the  soul,  must  be  denied  as  at  once  unscriptural  and  impossible. 
The  texts  which  seemingly  attribute  regeneration  to  the  power  of 
the  truth  cannot  be  interpreted  as  actually  so  meaning  without 
placing  them  in  opposition  to  the  many  which  definitely  ascribe 
that  work  to  the  divine  agency,  and  in  a  manner  to  mean  that  it  is 
the  only  efiicient  agency.  There  is  no  need  of  an  interpretation 
which  involves  such  an  opposition  of  texts.  The  many  services  of 
the  truth  in  our  attainment  of  salvation,  and  in  our  maintenance  of 
a  true  Christian  life,  will,  without  any  notion  of  its  regenerating 
power,  easily  interpret  the  texts  adduced  in  proof  of  such  a  power. 

It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  truth,  not  even  of  divine  truth,  that  it 
THE  POWER  should  possess  the  power  of  regeneration.  The  Script- 
NOT  IN  TRUTH,  urcs,  whlch  contain  this  truth,  give  us  a  knowledge  of 
divine  things ;  but  such  knowledge  has  no  direct  power  over  our 
moral  nature.  They  contain  many  holy  precepts,  enough  indeed 
for  our  guidance  into  all  duty  ;  but  precepts  have  not  in  themselves 
the  power  of  ruling  our  lives  ;  and  much  less  have  they  the  power 
of  sanctifying  our  nature.  Wherein,  then,  lies  the  great  power  of 
the  Scriptures  in  the  religious  life  ?  The  answer  is  obvious  :  It 
lies  in  the  practical  motives  embodied  in  the  great  religious  truths 
which  they  reveal.  Such  motives  may  act  upon  our  moral  and 
religious  feelings,  and  through  them  become  a  ruling  force  in  our 
religious  life.  But  such  is  the  only  mode  of  their  power ;  conse- 
quently, they  can  never  reach  the  moral  nature  with  any  power  of 
regeneration. 

We  have  no  power  of  self-regeneration.  The  nature  of  inherited 
NO  SELF-RE-  dcpravlty  precludes  its  possibility.  As  a  subjective 
GENERATION,  gtato  It  Is  as  really  in  us  and  of  us  as  if  original  to  our 
nature.  Hence  a  j)ower  of  self-regeneration  would  be  the  same  as 
a  power  of  changing  one's  own  nature.  There  can  be  no  such 
power.  It  is  the  sense  of  Scripture  respecting  our  natural  state 
that  we  have  no  such  power.'  In  this  moral  impotence  lies  the 
necessity  for  the  economy  of  redemption.  Eegeneration  is  a  true 
sphere  of  the  divine  monergism. 

There  is  also  a  sphere  of  synergism.  Regeneration  is  not  an 
A  PLACE  FOR  absolutc  work  of  the  Spirit.  We  have  already  shown 
SYNERGISM.  its  conditlouality.  There  are  prerequisites  which  can- 
not be  met  without  our  own  free  agency.  There  must  be  an  earnest 
turning  of  the  soul  to  God,  deep  repentance  for  sin,  and  a  true 
faith  in  Christ.  Such  are  the  requirements  of  our  own  agency. 
There  is  no  regeneration  for  us  without  them.  Yet  they  are  not 
I  John  iii,  6  ;  Rom.  vii,  5,  14,  18,  31  ;  viii,  3-8. 


KEGENERATION.  337 

possible  in  the  unaided  resources  of  our  own  nature.  Hence  there 
must  be  a  helping  work  of  the  Spirit  prior  to  his  work  of  regenera- 
tion. There  is  such  help.  The  Holy  Spirit  enlightens,  awakens, 
and  graciously  draws  us.  All  this  may  be  without  our  consent, 
and  even  despite  our  resistance.  We  may  finally  resist,  or  we  may 
yield  to  the  gracious  influences,  and  be  born  of  the  Spirit.  Here  is 
the  sphere  of  synergism. 

III.  Regeneration  and  Sonship. 

1.  Regeneration  the  Ground  of  Sonship. — To  be  born  of  God  is 
to  be  born  into  his  family,  and  to  become  his  child.  Sonship  is 
thus  immediately  from  regeneration.  This  is  the  clear  ^^^^  proofs 
meaning  of  the  Scriptures.     "  But  as  many  as  received 

him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to 
them  that  believe  on  his  name  :  which  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."*^ '  The 
same  truth  is  given  in  another  text,  though  the  form  of  expression 
is  different :  "  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have 
put  on  Christ."^  There  is  here  the  same  faith  in  Christ  as  the 
condition  of  sonship ;  while  the  baptism  into  Christ  and  the  put- 
ting on  Christ  are  both  the  sign  and  the  reality  of  regeneration, 
which  is  the  immediate  ground  of  the  sonship. 

As  regeneration  is  a  reality,  so  is  there  deep  meaning  in  such  a 
ground  of  sonship.  Adam  was  the  son  of  God,  but  only  meaning  for 
on  the  ground  of  creation.  We  are  all  his  offspring,  sonship. 
but  in  a  like  mode.  But  the  idea  of  a  divine  parentage  underlies 
the  sonship  which  has  its  ground  in  regeneration.  To  be  born  of 
God  is  to  be  placed  nearer  the  divine  Fatherhood  than  is  possible 
to  the  angels. 

2.  Adoption  and  Sonship. — Sometimes  this  sonship  is  represented 
as  by  adoption  :  "  But  ye  have  received  the  Spirit  of  sonship  bt 
adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father."'  This  text  adoption. 
means  a  gracious  sonship,  for  it  is  that  to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
here  represented  as  witnessing.  But  the  very  characterization  of 
the  Spirit  as  the  Spirit  of  adoption  clearly  means  a  gracious  son- 
ship  by  adoption.  We  have  elsewhere  the  same  view :  God  sent 
forth  his  Son  to  redeem  us,  "  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption 
of  sons."* 

In  civil  government  sonship  by  adoption  is  sonship  by  provision 
of  law,  not  on  the  ground  of  parentage.     In  the  absence  of  such 

>  John  i,  12,  13.  "  Gal.  iii,  26,  27. 

'Eom.  viii,  15.  *Gal.  iv,  5. 


338  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

ground  adoption  is  the  only  mode  of  sonship.  Now  there  is  a 
REGENERATION  sensc  in  which  we  are  alien  from  God  ;  out  of  filial  re- 
rNDERLiEs  lation  to  him.  Hence,  when  we  are  so  viewed  as  the 
THE  SONSHIP.  g^^jgQ|;g  of  a  gracious  affiliation,  our  sonship  may  very 
properly  be  represented  as  in  the  mode  of  adoption.  But  it  is  never 
really  such  in  fact.     The  new  birth  always  underlies  this  sonship. 

3.  The  Heritage  of  Blessings. — As  related  to  the  Father's  love 
and  the  inheritance  of  his  children,  sonship  by  adoption  is  the 
very  same  as  sonship  by  regeneration.  They  are  all  heirs  of  God 
and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  and  shall  be  like  him.'  It  would  be 
impossible  to  add  any  thing  to  the  passages  given  in  the  reference 
that  could  heighten  the  view  of  that  inheritance. 

Faber  :  The  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Regeneration ;  Anderson  :  Regeneration  ; 
Phelps :  The  New  Birth  ;  Heard  :  The  Tripartite  Nature  of  Man,  chap,  xii '; 
Delitzsch  :  Biblical  Psychology,  v,  Regeneration  ;  "Wesley  :  Sermons,  xviii,  xix  ; 
Fletcher :  Discourse  on  the  New  Birth,  Works,  vol.  iv,  pp.  97-117 ;  Merrill  : 
Aspects  of  Christian  Eocperience,  chap,  vlii  ;  Pope  :  Christian  Theology,  vol.  iii, 
pp.  1-27 ;  Eaymond  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  344-361  ;  Schmid  :  Doc- 
trinal Theology  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  §  46  ;  Leighton  :  Works, 
Theological  Lectures,  xv,  xvi ;  Shedd  :  Dogmatic  Theology,  Soteriology,  chap, 
iii ;  Backus  :  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Regeneration ;  Sears  :  Regeneration — Uni- 
tarian view. 

'  Rom.  viii,  14-18 ;  Gal.  iv,  4-7  ;  1  John  iii,  2. 


ASSURANCE.  339 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ASSURANCE. 

I.  The  Doctrine. 

1.  Meaning  of  Assurance. — We  mean  by  assurance  the  persua- 
sion or  confidence  of  a  believer  in  Christ  that  he  is  a  child  of 
God.  As  the  atonement  is  the  ground  of  the  gracious  affiliation, 
60  the  assurance  of  its  attainment,  specially  in  its  Christian  form, 
is  the  privilege  only  of  believers  in  Christ. 

The  matter  of  assurance  is  definitely  that  of  sonship.  There  is 
a  doctrine  of  assurance  which  allies  itself  with  that  of  matter  of  as- 
an  absolute  election  to  salvation,  and  means  a  certainty  surance. 
of  future  blessedness.  The  view  is  this  :  The  attainment  of  a  gi'a- 
cious  state  is  conclusive  of  election  ;  and  election  is  conclusive  of 
both  final  perseverance  and  future  blessedness.  We  are  not  here 
concerned  with  this  view,  and,  without  further  notice  of  it,  proceed 
with  our  own  doctrine.  The  assurance  we  maintain  respects  sim- 
ply a  present  state  of  grace.  As  before  observed,  the  state  is  defi- 
nitely that  of  sonship.  This  is  specially  true  as  it  respects  the 
assurance  received  from  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  ^he  classical 
Here  are  the  evidences  :  "  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  texts. 
witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  "  And 
because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into 
your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father.'' '  These  are  the  classical  texts 
on  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  and  are  in  themselves  entirely  sufficient 
for  the  present  point.  Justification  and  regeneration  are  so  closely 
related  to  this  sonship  that  we  easily  think  them  included  with  it  in 
the  matter  to  which  the  Spirit  witnesses  ;  but  the  Scriptures  do  not 
80  include  them.  It  is  true  that  we  attain  an  assurance  of  both,  but 
not  by  the  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit,  as  in  the  case  of  sonship.  They 
come  to  be  facts  of  assurance  through  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit 
— which  will  hereafter  be  set  forth.  By  a  limitation  of  assurance 
through  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  the  definite  fact  of  sonship,  as 
the  Scriptures  limit  it,  we  shall  secure  for  his  witnessing  a  clearness 
of  interpretation  not  otherwise  attainable. 

As  a  mental  state  or  fact  of  consciousness,  assurance  is  like  faith; 
yet  not  so  much  the  definite  act  of  faith  as  the  resulting  persuasion. 
'  Eom.  viii,  16  ;  Gal.  iv,  6. 


340  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  truth  in  what  we  have  believed.  Consciousness  readily  distin- 
THE  MENTAL  gulshes  betweou  the  definite  act  of  faith  and  the  conse- 
sTATE.  quent  persuasion  of  truth  in  the  matter  believed.     Of 

course  the  distinction  is  the  clearer  and  fuller  as  the  matter  involved 
the  more  deeply  concerns  us.  If  it  be  something  of  profound  in- 
terest for  our  future,  then  the  abiding  confidence  in  its  truth  will 
be  as  real  and  clear  in  our  consciousness  as  was  the  definite  act  of 
faith  wherein  we  first  believed  it  true.  The  assurance  of  a  gracious 
sonship  is  such  a  form  of  confidence.  There  is  reason  for  so  char- 
acterizing it.  So  far  as  derived  from  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit, 
it  springs  from  appropriate  testimony,  and  therefore  must  partake  of 
the  nature  of  faith.  And,  while  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  given 
in  an  entirely  different  mode,  yet  the  assurance  which  it  produces 
is  not  different  in  kind,  nor  distinct  in  fact,  from  the  assurance  re- 
ceived through  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit. 

2.  Triith  of  Assurance. — The  truth  or  reality  of  assurance  will 
receive  its  clearest  and  fullest  presentation  in  the  treatment  of  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  and  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit.  Preparatory 
to  that  presentation  we  may  notice  a  few  facts  which  combine  in  the 
proof  of  such  a  privilege. 

As  already  shown,  the  matter  of  assurance  is  that  of  a  state  of  sal- 
NOTASTATETo  vatlou  wliich  is  attained  through  Justification  and  the 
BE  HIDDEN.  jjew  birth.  We  thus  enter  into  God's  favor  and  become 
his  children  and  heirs.  These  privileges  are  possible  through  the 
wonderful  provisions  of  his  redeeming  love.  To  this  end  he  sent 
forth  his  Son  "  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we 
might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons."  "  Behold,  what  manner  of  love 
the  Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us,  that  we  should  be  called  the  sons 
of  Grod.'^ '  Such  is  the  actual  and  only  ground  of  this  sonship. 
And  we  attain  it  only  through  a  gracious  act  of  God  toward  us 
in  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  and  a  mighty  work  of  God  within  us 
whereby  we  become  his  children.  It  is  not  consistent  with  any 
reasonable  view  of  either  that  it  should  be  hidden  from  us. 

If  God  freely  forgives  our  sins  he  will  in  some  way  assure  us  of 
FORGIVENESS  ^^^  ^^^t.  If  au  officer  of  government  should  pardon  a 
MADE  KNOWN,  cnmlual  the  fact  would  surely  be  made  known  to  him. 
How  then  shall  God  hide  from  us  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins  ?  To 
one  and  another  Christ  said,  ''Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee."  In 
every  such  instance  there  were  two  distinct  facts  :  one,  the  act  of 
pardon — an  act  purely  within  the  mind  of  Christ ;  the  other,  a 
making  known  the  act  to  the  subject  of  the  forgiveness.  The  act 
of  pardon  was  complete  in  itself,  and  would  have  been  none  the 
'  Gal.  iv,  4,  5  ;  1  John  iii,  1. 


ASSURANCE.  341 

less  complete  without  the  making  it  known  ;  but  how  naturally 
the  latter  fact  goes  with  the  former  !  In  view  of  the  character  of 
Christ  we  could  not  reasonably  think  of  him  as  withholding  tlie 
assurance  of  forgiveness  in  any  such  instance.  God  is  not  less 
merciful  in  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins.  Nor  are  we  less  in  need  of 
the  information  than  were  those  who  went  to  Christ  in  their  sin  and 
sorrow.  And  no  more  reasonably  could  we  think  of  God  as  hiding 
from  us  his  gi-acious  act  of  forgiveness. 

The  new  birth  is  a  mighty  change  wrought  within  us.  Such  we 
found  it  to  be  in  our  treatment  of  regeneration.  We  „„„„„,,„  „,  ,. 
are  therein  born  of  God,  born  into  the  kingdom  of  consciously 
God,  and  so  become  his  children  and  heirs  ;  heirs  of  '''"""  ''^' 
God,  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ.  The  life  is  new.  The  love  of 
God  replaces  the  enmity  of  the  carnal  mind.  Instead  of  condem- 
nation there  is  peace  with  God.  The  fruits  of  the  Spirit  replace  the 
works  of  the  flesh.  Surely  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  so  mighty  a 
change  wrought  within  us,  nor  consistent  with  the  greatness  of  the 
privileges  into  which  it  brings  us,  that  we  should  be  left  without 
any  assurance  of  either. 

There  is  for  us  a  new  life  ;  a  Christian  life  ;  a  life  of  Christian 
duty.  There  are  many  duties.  They  require  the  faith-  ^^^  ^.^^.  ^^^^ 
ful  service  of  Christ,  piety  toward  God,  and  charity  to-  consciously 
ward  men.  The  fulfillment  of  these  duties  is  possible  ^''^""^• 
only  with  the  activity  of  our  moral  and  religious  affections.  They 
must  be  purposely  and  consciously  performed.  Such  performance 
requires  the  proper  motives  of  piety  and  charity.  Such  a  life  cannot 
be  hidden  from  the  personal  consciousness.  We  must  be  capable  of 
knowing  whether  our  life  is  such  ;  of  knowing  when  it  is  such.  It 
is,  therefore,  in  the  very  nature  of  such  a  life  to  make  itself  known 
in  our  personal  consciousness,  and  hence  to  give  us  assurance  of  its 
possession. 

3.  Sources  of  Assurance. — It  has  already  appeared  that  there  are 
two  sources  of  assurance  :  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the 
witness  of  our  own  spirit.  The  fact  of  a  witness  of  our  own  spirit 
will  be  sufficiently  shown  in  the  treatment  of  its  nature  ;  therefore 
it  need  not  be  separately  considered. 

Not  a  few  deny  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Yet  the  fact  has 

sure  ground  in  the  Scriptures.     There  is  sufficient  proof     ix  the  holt 

in  a  single  text :    "  The  Spirit   itself  beareth  witness     ^''^"^"• 

with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God."*     On  a  denial  of 

the  meaning  which  we  claim  for  this  text  all  reference  to  the  Holy 

Spirit  as  a  personal  agent  must  be  denied  to  this  chapter.'     Such 

'  Eom.  viii,  16.  '  Eoni.  viii. 

24  » 


342  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

denial  is  worse  than  groundless.  In  proof  of  this  we  glance  at  a 
AGKNCYOFTHE  ^^^  ^f  the  rcfcrences  I  "For  the  law  of  the  Spirit 
SPIRIT.  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  hath  made  me  free  from  the 

law  of  sin  and  death."  Here  the  Spirit  must  mean,  not  the  gra- 
cious freedom  attained,  but  the  personal  agent  who  achieves  it.  "  If 
so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you."  This  indwelling  of 
the  Spirit  cannot  mean  simply  a  spiritual  state  or  pious  disposition. 
In  afar  deeper  sense  of  Scrij)ture,  Christians  are  "the  temple  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  and  the  "  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit." 
These  facts  must  mean  a  personal  presence  or  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  "  But  ye  have  received  the  Sjiirit  of  adoption. "  Here 
the  Spirit  of  adoption  must  mean,  not  the  filial  disposition  of  an 
adopted  child,  but  the  divine  Spirit  through  whose  agency  we 
become  the  children  of  adoj)tion.  This  meaning  is  thoroughly 
RESPECTiNXi  scriptural.  So  the  words  respecting  the  witness  of  the 
OUR  soxsHip.  Spirit  to  our  sonship,  as  above  cited,  cannot  be  inter- 
preted in  the  sense  of  a  filial  disposition  which  assures  us  of  adop- 
tion, but  must  mean  a  distinct  and  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  him- 
self. The  fact  of  such  a  witness  of  the  Spirit  will  further  appear 
in  the  treatment  of  his  testimony. 

If  this  were  a  solitary  instance  of  the  personal  agency  of  the 
MANY  IN-  Spirit,  or  even  a  rare  instance,  we  might  feel  less  con- 
sTANCEs  OF  fidcut  of  our  position ;  but  it  is  not  even  rare :  the 
Scriptures  are  replete  with  such  instances.  In  our 
discussion  of  the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Spirit  we  found 
many  in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  in  the  dispensations 
of  religion,  and  notably  in  the  economy  of  redemption.  Through 
his  personal  agency  we  are  born  into  the  kingdom  of  God  and  con- 
stituted his  children.  So  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  our  sonship 
is  an  instance  of  his  personal  agency  in  perfect  accord  with  his 
manifold  offices  in  the  work  of  our  salvation.  This  fact  confirms 
the  truth  of  his  personal  witnessing  to  our  adoption. 

II.  Witness  of  the  Spirit. 
1.  A  Distinct  Witness. — Two  or  more  witnesses  may  jointly  tes- 
tify to  the  same  thing,  but  each  is  a  distinct  witness.  Such  a  wit- 
ness is  the  Holy  Spirit  to  our  sonship.  The  fact  is  in  the  mean- 
ing of  these  words  :  "=  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our 
TWO  OR  MORE  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  '  The  original 
-n-iTXEssEs.  word  here  used  for  witnessing — avjinaprvpeu) — means 
two  or  more  witnesses  jointly,  yet  distinctly,  testifying  to  the  same 
thing.      As  two  are  here  designated,   the  word  in  this  instance 

'  Rom.  viii,  16. 


ASSURANCE.  343 

means  no  more.  It  cannot  mean  less.  Such  is  the  force  of  avv 
in  composition  witli  iiaprvQecj.  Many  authorities  might  easily  be 
cited  for  this  interpretation. 

It  was  in  view  of  the  original  word  that  Mr.  Wesley  said  :  "  It  is 
manifest,  here  are  two  witnesses  mentioned,  who  to- 
gether testify  the  same  thing  :  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
our  own  spirit.'"  **  The  apostle's  term,  avfifiaQTvpeco,  'beareth 
witness  with,'  is  the  very  term  which  was  used  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage to  denote  a  concurrence  of  testimony,  where  more  than  one 
witness  testified  to  the  same  thing."  "  I  have  never  found  the 
word  used  in  a  different  sense  by  any  writer  in  any  one  instance."' 
This  testimony  is  given  after  much  research,  and  numerous  authori- 
ties are  cited  in  its  support.  We  add  other  testimonies  :  *'  The 
words  in  the  original  evidently  imply  the  sense  which  our  transla- 
tors follow.  .  .  .  IvniiagrvQelv  signifies  to  be  a  fellow-witness,  or  to 
witness  the  same  thing  that  another  does ;  and  so  the  word  con- 
stantly signifies  in  Scripture,  and  is  never  used  but  where  there  is  a 
concurrent  evidence  of  two  witnesses."'  'Tor  the  concurrence  of 
the  two  witnesses  the  critical  testimony  is  overwhelming."*  Many 
authorities,  both  classical  and  ecclesiastical,  are  given  in  confirma- 
tion of  this  meaning. 

If  such  be  the  meaning  of  this  text,  as  surely  it  is,  the  Holy 
Spirit  must  be  a  distinct  witness  to  our  sonship.  If  ^^^  ^^^^^^  ^ 
the  sense  of  two  witnesses  be  disputed,  or  even  dis-  distinct  -wit- 
proved,  what  must  follow  ?  Not  that  the  text  does  not  ^^^®" 
mean  a  distinct  witness  of  the  Spirit,  but  that  it  does  not  mean  a 
witness  of  our  own  spirit.  On  a  denial  of  two  witnesses  the  ren- 
dering must  be  :  "  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  to  our  spirit, 
that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  Such  a  rendering  is  entirely 
consistent  with  the  form  of  words  in  the  phrase  tw  Trvev[iari  rj/xcjv  ; 
and  if  the  true  one,  the  meaning  must  be  that  our  own  spirit  is 
simply  recipient  of  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit ;  and  in  no  other 
form  of  words  could  a  distinct  personal  Avitnessing  of  the  Spirit  to 
our  sonship  be  more  clearly  or  definitely  expressed.  With  such  a 
result  it  would  still  remain  true  that  there  is  a  witness  of  our  own 
spirit  to  our  sonship,  though  the  proof  of  it  could  no  longer  be 
found  in  this  text.  On  either  view,  therefore,  a  distinct  witnessing 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  must  be  accepted  as  a  truth  of  the  ^  confirma- 
Scriptures.  We  add  a  single  text  in  confirmation :  tort  tkxt. 
"And  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his 

•  Sermons,  vol.  i,  p.  95.  '  Walton  :   Witness  of  the  Spii-it,  pp.  84,  222. 

^  Bishop  Sherlock :  Works,  vol.  i,  pp.  154,  155. 

^  Young:   Witness  of  the  Spirit,  Feniley  Lecture,  1882,  p.  86. 


344  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father. " '  These  words  can- 
not be  interpreted  on  the  ground  of  a  merely  filial  disposition  of 
the  children  of  God  as  the  witness  to  our  adoption,  but  must  mean 
the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  himself.  Hence  the  text  proves  a  dis- 
tinct witnessing  of  the  Spirit  to  our  sonship. 

2.  A  Direct  Witness. — If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  witness  to 
EBRONEors  ^^^^  adoption  he  must  be  a  direct  witness.  Any  other 
iNTERPRETA-  interpretation  must  merge  his  testimony  into  that  of 
TioN.  Q^j,  Q^^  spirit;  and  thus  we  should  have  only  one  witness 

and  one  testimony  instead  of  two  witnesses  and  a  distinct  testimony 
of  each.     The  error  of  such  an  interpretation  is  not  rare.     We  here 
give  an  instance :   *'  The  part  that  the  Spirit  of  God 

CHALMERS 

hath  had  in  this  matter  is,  that  he  both  graves  upon  us 
the  lineaments  of  a  living  epistle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  tells  us  in  the 
epistle  of  a  written  revelation  what  these  lineaments  are.  The  part 
which  our  own  spirit  has  is,  that,  with  the  eye  of  consciousness,  we 
read  what  is  in  ourselves;  and,  with  the  eye  of  the  understanding,  we 
read  what  is  in  the  book  of  God's  testimony:  and  upon  our  perceiv- 
ing that  such  as  the  marks  of  grace  which  we  find  to  be  within,  so 
are  the  marks  of  grace  which  we  observe  in  the  description  of  that 
word  without  that  the  Spirit  hath  indited,  we  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion that  we  are  born  of  God."*  In  this  view  there  are  two 
ALLOWS  NO  works  of  the  Spirit,  as  concerned  in  our  assurance  of  a 
WITNESS  OF  state  of  grace:  one,  a  work  of  inspiration  whereby  he 
THE  SPIRIT.  describes,  in  a  written  revelation,  the  distinctive  char- 
acteristics of  a  child  of  God ;  the  other,  a  work  of  regeneration 
whereby  these  characteristics  are  wrought  in  us.  But  in  all  this 
there  is  no  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  our  sonship  ;  indeed,  no 
proper  witnessing  in  any  form.  The  citation  is  a  very  accurate 
statement  of  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit,  but  of  that  only ;  and 
the  formal  manner  in  which  it  is  made  not  only  omits  all  witness 
of  the  Spirit,  but  really  excludes  it.  In  this  it  is  openly  contrary 
to  the  Scriptures,  in  the  clearest  sense  of  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  only  an  actual  witness,  but  a  distinct  and 
direct  witness,  to  our  sonship. 

Another  instance  may  be  given  in  order  to  set  forth  the  more 
clearly  this  error  of  interpretation.     ''  The  power  to  do 

SHERLOCK.  -.'^  .  ,-,  .        r,  »,n-l-rl7-('-J  T 

good  comes  from  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and 
therefore  the  good  we  do  is  such  an  evidence  of  our  being  the  sons 
of  God  as  we  stand  obliged  to  the  Spirit  of  God  for.  .  .  .  The  great 
privileges  mentioned  in  this  chapter/  such  as  being  made  free  from 
the  law  of  sin  and  death,  of  walking,  not  after  the  flesh,  but  the 
'  Gal.  iv,  6.  2  Chalmers  :  Lectures  on  Romans,  p.  275.  ^  Eom.  viii. 


ASSURANCE.  .145 

Spirit,  being  such  as  we  receive  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  there- 
fore evidences  of  the  Spirit  for  our  regeneration." '  In  the  spikit 
this  view  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  given  simply  and  kxclidkd. 
solely  through  the  fruits  of  his  gracious  work  within  us.  As  we 
consciously  possess  the  fruits  of  this  work,  so  are  we  assured  that  we 
are  the  children  of  God.  This,  however,  is  simply  the  witness  of 
our  own  spirit,  and  all  proper  witnessing  of  the  Spirit  is  excluded. 
Thus  the  learned  bishop,  after  clearly  showing  us  that  the  Spirit  is 
a  distinct  witness,  wholly  excludes  him  by  a  wrong  interpretation 
of  his  testimony. 

The  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  given  neither  through  his  work  of 
regeneration  wliereby  we  become  the  children  of  God,  ^  direct  wit- 
nor  through  the  fruits  of  the  new  spiritual  life,  but  by  ness. 
an  immediate  operation  within  our  consciousness  in  a  manner  to 
assure  us  of  the  gracious  sonship.  The  state  of  sonship  is  prior  to 
this  testimony.  "  The  Spirit  himself  beareth  witness  with  our 
spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  ^'And  because  ye  are 
sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts, 
crying,  Abba,  Father."  It  is  thus  manifest  that  the  witness  of  the 
Spirit  is  to  a  sonship  already  existing.  Therefore  his  testimony 
cannot  be  given  through  the  work  of  regeneration  whereby  the 
sonship  is  constituted,  but  must  be  given  directly  within  the  con- 
sciousness of  believers  in  Christ. 

There  is  an  argument  much  in  use  for  the  proof  of  a  direct  wit- 
ness of  the  Spirit,  which  we  think  of  doubtful  validity,  ^  questioxa- 
and  also  of  doubtful  propriety  :  of  doubtful  validity,  ble  argu- 
because  it  proceeds  upon  a  mistaken  view  of  facts  ;  and 
of  doubtful  propriety,  because  it  may  easily  lead  to  a  merging  of  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  into  that  of  our  own  spirit.  Yet  it  is  an 
argument  much  in  favor  with  the  best  Wesleyan  writers  on  this 
subject,  including  Mr.  Wesley  himself.*  We  are  not  unmindful 
of  the  respect  due  to  such  authors. 

The  argument  assumes  a  priority  of  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  as 
compared  with  that  of  our  own  spirit ;  assumes  it  as  the  the  arou- 
necessary  ground  of  the  fruits  of  grace  through  which  ^•'■•'''''• 
our  own  spirit  witnesses.  If  the  facts  be  such,  or  if  the  experiences 
through  which  our  spirit  witnesses  have  their  immediate  and 
only  source  in  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  our  sonship,  then 
must  he  be  a  direct  witness.      Such  is  the  argument.     We  here 

'  Bishop  Sherlock  :  Works,  vol.  i,  pp.  157,  158. 

'  Wesley  :  Sermons,  vol.  i,  p.  88  ;  Watson  :  Sermons,  vol.  ii,  pp.  347,  348  ; 
Walton  :  Witness  of  the  Sjnrit,  pp.  43-47  ;  Prest  :  TJie  Witness  of  the  Spirit, 
pp.  140-143  ;   Young :    Tfie  Witness  of  the  Sjnrit,  p.  61. 

24  • 


346  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

give  an  instance  of  its  construction  :  "  But  is  it  not  obvious  to  you, 
that  love  to  God  directly  implies  the  knowledge  of  his 

INSTANCE  OF  "^     .       ^  ^ 

iTscoNSTRuc-  lovc  to  US,  as  our  reconciled  Father  ?  God's  love  to 
'^^^^'  us  is  the  cause  of  our  love  to  him,  and  must  therefore 

be  known  by  us  before  we  can  love  him.  So,  too,  as  to  peace.  Can  we 
have  this  before  we  know  whether  we  are  at  peace  with  God,  before 
we  know  that  his  anger  is  turned  away  from  us?  What  is  the  cause 
of  the  distress  of  that  penitent  mourner  in  sin  ?  He  tells  you,  and 
he  tells  you  truly,  that  it  is  because  God  is  angry  with  him.  Now, 
how  do  you  propose  to  calm  his  agitation  ?  You  tell  him  that  he 
is  to  examine  himself,  whether  he  has  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that,  if  he  has,  he  may  then  infer  that  God's  anger  is 
turned  away  from  him  ;  that  is,  he  feels  he  has  not  either  peace  or 
joy,  and  you  tell  him  that,  in  order  that  he  may  obtain  them,  he 
is  to  construct  an  argument  whose  basis  is  that  both  peace  and  joy 
are  already  in  his  possession.  Brethren,  love,  and  peace,  and  joy 
are  all  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  '  given  unto  us,'  on  our  '  being  justified 
by  faith,'  as  the  Spirit  of  adoption.  The  graces  which  the  apostle 
enumerates  constitute  '  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit ; '  but  his  very  first 
work,  on  our  believing,  and  that  by  which  this  fruit  is  produced, 
is  to  bear  witness  to  our  adoption  into  God's  family,  and  thus  to 
enable  us  to  call  God  our  Father.  The  fruits  of  the  Spirit  flow  from 
the  witness  of  the  Spirit."  ' 

The  argument  mistakes  the  source  of  the  experiences  through 
which  our  own  spirit  witnesses  to  our  sonship.  It  attrib- 
utes them  to  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whereas 
they  spring  in  fact  from  his  work  of  regeneration.  The  witness  of 
the  Spirit  cannot  produce  them,  because  it  is  not  in  itself  renewing 
or  sanctifying.  Without  the  inner  change  wrought  by  regeneration 
no  assurance  of  adoption  could  yield  the  spiritual  fruits  of  peace,  and 
love,  and  joy.  With  their  source  in  regeneration,  the  assurance  of 
sonship  through  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  may  give  them  a  deeper 
and  richer  tone,  but  it  cannot  be  their  original  source.  Eegenera- 
tion  is  a  mighty  work  which  at  once  reveals  itself  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  soul,  even  in  peace,  and  love,  and  joy.  Therein  the  love 
of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  instant- 
ly flows  back  in  love  to  God.  And  the  Spirit's  ''very  first  work, 
on  our  believing,  and  that  by  which  this  fruit  is  produced,  is,"  not 
"  to  bear  witness  to  our  adoption,"  but  to  renew  us  in  the  image  of 
God  ;  not  to  assure  us  that  we  are  the  children  of  God,  but  to  con- 
stitute us  his  children  through  the  work  of  regeneration.  An  ap- 
peal is  made  to  the  case  of  the  penitent,  full  of  fear  and  trembling; 
'  Watson  :  Sermons,  vol.  ii  p.  348. 


ASSURANCE.  347 

'*  You  tell  him  that  he  is  to  examine  himself,  whether  he  has  peace 
and  joy/'  that  he  may  be  assured  of  the  divine  favor,  the  case  op  a 
No,  we  would  not  so  direct  him ;  nor  would  the  Holy  pemtent. 
Spirit  witness  to  his  adoption,  and  so  assure  him  of  the  loving  favor 
of  God.  The  one  thing  for  such  a  penitent  to  do  is  to  believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whereon  he  shall  receive  forgiveness  and 
be  born  of  God.  Through  this  mighty  change,  whence  the  fruits 
of  the  Spirit  so  promptly  spring,  he  becomes  a  child  of  God  ;  and 
his  own  spirit  will  be  instant  with  the  Holy  Spirit  in  witnessing  to 
his  adoption.  The  groundless  assumption  that  the  experiences 
through  which  our  own  spirit  witnesses  to  our  sonship  are  the 
immediate  fruit  of  the  Spirit's  witnessing,  and  are  else  impossible, 
leaves  this  argument  without  validity. 

The  argument  is  objectionable  in  other  points.      There  is  too 
much  detail  in  the  matter  to  which  the  Spirit  is  held  to 

^  OTHER  OBJEC- 

witness.  There  is  thus  included  a  direct  assurance  tionable 
of  forgiveness,  of  the  love  of  God  therein,  and  of  an  ''^'^"'^• 
heirship  to  eternal  life.  Now,  while  the  Scriptures  are  specially 
definite  respecting  sonship  as  the  matter  of  assurance,  so  much 
addition  by  detail  must  be  of  questionable  propriety.  It  is 
true  that,  with  the  assurance  of  sonship,  we  receive  the  assur- 
ance of  these  other  blessings,  but  not  without  the  witness  of  our 
own  spirit.  Further,  if,  as  this  argument  maintains,  peace,  and 
love,  and  joy,  with  many  other  gracious  experiences,  are  the  im- 
mediate fruit  of  the  Spirit's  witnessing  to  our  sonship,  it  is  but 
a  short  and  easy  step  to  the  conclusion  that  his  witness  is  given 
simply  and  only  through  these  fruits.  But  we  should  thus  merge 
his  witnessing  into  that  of  our  own  spirit,  and  hence  lose  the  direct 
witness  of  the  Spirit  in  the  very  argument  so  much  relied  upon  for 
its  proof. 

3.  Maimer  of  the  Witnessing. — It  is  easier  to  state  the  result  of 
the  Spirit's  witnessing  than  to  explain  the  mode  of  his 

r  b  I'  ^jf  OPERATIOX 

agency.     The  result  is  the  assurance  of  a  gracious  son-  within  the 
ship.     The  assurance  is  produced  by  an  immediate  oper-  ^^^^' 
ation  of  the  Spirit  within  the  mind  of  a  believer  in  Christ.     This, 
however,  is  merely  the  statement  of  a  fact,  not  any  explanation  of 
its  mode.     There  is  no  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  apart  from  the 
assurance  which  he  produces.     There  is  neither  outer  nor  inner 
voice  whereby  he  reveals  himself,  nor  any  direct  communication  to 
our  intelligence,  but  simply  an  operation  within  the  mind  whereby 
he  produces  the  assurance  of  adoption.     In  this  respect  ^s  in  coxvic- 
the  mode  of  the  operation  is  the  same  as  in  the  work  '"^''  ^'^^  '^^^• 
of  conviction.     There  is  such  a  work  of  the  Spirit ;  and  it  is  one 


348  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  offices  which  he  is  ever  fulfilling.'  The  fact  of  sin  is  thus 
brought  home  to  the  heart  and  conscience  of  men.  There  may  be 
instances  in  which  some  truth  or  providence  is  used  as  a  means;  but 
there  is  no  limitation  to  such  instrumentality.  When  no  awakening 
truth  is  present  to  the  mind;  when  no  event  elicits  serious  reflection; 
when  all  the  surroundings  lead  the  mind  far  away  from  the  thought 
of  sin — even  at  such  a  time  the  Holy  Spirit  directly  touches  the 
springs  of  moral  feeling,  quickens  the  conscience,  and  instantly  there 
is  the  deep  sense  of  sin  and  peril.  So,  by  an  operation  equally  im- 
mediate, he  produces  in  the  mind  of  a  believer  in  Christ  the  per- 
suasion or  confidence  of  sonship.  Such  is  the  witness  of  the  Spirit. 
The  mode  of  the  Spirit  in  this  witnessing  remains  a  mystery ;  yet 
REALITY  IN  ^^^  rcsultlug  assuraucc  of  sonship  is  none  the  less  real 
THE  MYSTERY,  qy  prcclous.  Thls  Is  not  the  only  instance  of  mystery 
in  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  His  work  of  inspiration  is  equally  such, 
but  without  any  detriment  to  the  truths  of  religion  thus  given  to 
the  world.  Such  too  is  his  work  of  regeneration ;  but  the  new 
spiritual  life  and  the  sonship  into  which  we  are  born  are  none  the 
less  real  or  blessed.  There  is  for  us  an  utter  mystery  in  the  per- 
ceptions of  the  ear  and  the  eye  ;  but  sounds  are  just  as  sweet  and 
scenes  are  just  as  beautiful  as  if  we  understood  their  mode.  So  it 
is  respecting  the  assurance  of  sonship  through  the  witness  of  the 
Spirit. 

III.  WiTXESs  OF  OuK  Own  Spirit. 

1.  Nature  of  the  Testimony. — In  this  case  the  witnessing  is  indi- 
rect or  mediate,  and  proceeds  on  a  comparison  of  certain  facts  of 
MODE  OF  THE  rcHgious  experience  and  life  with  the  relative  facts  of 
WITNESSING.  Scripture.  The  Scriptures  clearly  note  the  distinctive 
and  determining  facts  of  this  gracious  sonship.  We  find  such  facts 
in  our  own  experience  and  life.  When,  therefore,  on  a  proper 
comparison,  we  discover  an  exact  or,  at  least,  real  accordance  be- 
tween these  facts  within  us  and  those  within  the  Scriptures,  we 
receive  the  witness  of  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God. 
It  is  true  that  this  witnessing  comes  to  us  in  the  form  of  an  infer- 
ence, but  it  is  a  thoroughly  warranted  inference,  and  therefore  truly 
assuring.  These  statements  may  here  suffice,  as  the  nature  of  this 
witnessing  will  more  clearly  appear  in  the  illustrations  which  im- 
mediately follow. 

2.  Illustrations  of  tlie  Witnessing. — Sonship  is  a  state  of  peace 

with  God.      "  Therefore  being  justified  by  faith,  we 

have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

"  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are  in 

'  John  xvi,  8-11. 


ASSURANCE.  349 

Christ  Jesus."'  On  the  one  side  is  condemnation;  on  the  other, 
peace.  The  difference  between  these  states,  as  they  enter  into  our 
religious  experience,  is  very  real ;  so  real  that  we  can  readily  deter- 
mine which  is  our  own  state.  If  we  find  in  ourselves  the  sense  of 
peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  peace  wit- 
nesses to  our  sonship." 

The  children  of  God  love  him  :  "  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  an- 
other :  for  love  is  of  God  ;  and  every  one  that  loveth  is 
born  of  God,  and  knoweth  God."'  It  is  true  that 
brotherly  love  is  foremost  in  this  text,  but  clearly  it  also  means  that 
those  who  are  born  of  God  love  him.  We  thereby  test  ourselves. 
We  read  in  the  Scriptures :  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God  ; "  *  and  we  are  sure  that  such  is  not  the  state  of  our  own 
mind.  We  read  again  :  ''  Love  is  of  God  ;  and  every  one  that  lov- 
eth is  born  of  God  ;"  and  we  are  sure  that  such  is  our  own  experi- 
ence. We  thus  have  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit  that  we  are  born 
of  God,  and  therefore  are  his  children. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  children  of  God  that  they  love  one 
another.  "  We  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death  brotfierlt 
unto  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren."  '*  If  we  love  i-o^^- 
one  another,  God  dwelleth  in  us,  and  his  love  is  perfected  in  us. " " 
It  is  easy  to  apply  this  test.  And  if  we  find  in  ourselves  this  love, 
love  for  the  children  of  God  because  they  are  his  children,  then  shall 
we  have  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit  to  the  truth  of  our  sonship. 

A  truly  filial  spirit  is  the  sj^irit  of  obedience  to  God.  Such  is  the 
spirit  of  all  who  are  in  a  truly  regenerate  state.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  possession  of  such  a  spirit  is  the 
proof  of  such  a  state.  "  If  ye  know  that  he  is  righteous,  ye  know 
that  every  one  that  doeth  righteousness  is  born  of  him."'  If  we 
have  the  consciousness  of  such  a  filial  disposition  as  a  ruling  force 
in  our  life,  then  have  we  the  sure  evidence  of  a  truly  regenerate  state, 
and  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God. 

The  children  of  God  are  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit :  ''For  as  many 
as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  fruits  of  the 
God."""  The  life  of  any  one  so  led  must  be  in  the  s^'R". 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  not  in  the  works  of  the  flesh.*  Each  of  these 
lives  is  such  in  its  facts  that  it  must  reveal  itself  in  the  personal 
consciousness.  Further,  the  two  are  in  such  wide  contrast  that 
we  may  readily  determine  which  we  are  living.  This  is  manifestly 
the  case  in  view  of  their  characterization  and  distinction  in  the 

'  Rom.  V,  1  ;  viii,  1.  » 1  John  iii,  19-21.  '  1  John  iv,  7. 

^  Rom.  viii,  7.  » 1  John  iii,  14  ;  iv,  13.  « 1  John  ii,  29. 

'  Rom.  viii,  14.  »  Rom.  viii,  4-10. 


350  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Scriptures.^  Now  everyone  whose  life  is  in  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit 
is  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  therefore  must  be  a  child  of  God. 
Hence  every  one  whose  life  is  consciously  such  must  have  the  wit- 
ness of  his  own  spirit  that  he  is  a  child  of  God.  Such  is  the  witness 
of  our  own  spirit  to  this  sonship. 

3.  Process  of  the  Witnessing. — There  is  really  a  logical  process. 
This  is  manifest  in  the  nature  of  the  witnessing,  as  previously 
„„   „^^   „     stated,  and  also  in  the  several  illustrations  which  we 

THE  PROCESS  ' 

SCARCELY  OB-  havc  glvcu.  However,  it  does  not  follow  that  this 
SERVABLE.  proccss  must  be  formally  conducted  before  our  own 
sjiirit  can  give  its  assuring  testimony.  Even  in  its  reasoning  the 
mind  often  moves  with  great  rapidity,  and  reaches  the  result  almost 
instantly;  so  that  the  process  is  scarcely  appreciable  in  time,  or 
even  observable  in  consciousness.  Such  is  the  case  here.  The 
peace  and  joy  received  in  conversion  are  anticipated,  and  therefore 
bear  instant  testimony  to  our  adoption.  Such  is  the  case  in  many 
EXCEPTIONAL  Instanccs.  There  are  exceptions.  Instances  are  not 
CASES.  wanting  in  which  there  is  a  gradual  manifestation  of 

the  gracious  change.  Here  there  must  be  a  gradual  witnessing  of 
our  own  spirit.  In  such  instances  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Sj)irit 
is  in  a  like  gradual  manner.  This  is  entirely  consistent  with  his 
part  in  the  work  of  assurance.  His  testimony  need  not  be  instantly 
full  because  it  is  immediate. 

In  the  Christian  life  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit  may  be 
THE  WITNESS  prouiptly  given.  Here,  however,  much  depends  upon 
AS  THE  LIFE,  ^hc  dcptli  of  cxperiencc  and  the  fullness  of  consecra- 
tion. If  the  religious  life  is  low  and  the  evidences  of  a  gracious 
state  correspondingly  feeble,  we  need  the  more  of  them,  and  hence 
must  institute  a  wider  comparison  of  our  experience  and  life  with 
the  Scripture  notes  of  this  state,  in  order  to  an  assuring  witness  of 
our  own  spirit.  The  same  course  may  be  necessary  in  seasons  of 
temptation  or  trial,  wherein  the  soul  is  brought  into  heaviness  or 
doubt.  Usually,  however,  with  a  living  experience  and  a  true  con- 
secration, the  witness  of  our  own  spirit  is  so  promptly  given  that  we 
scarcely  observe  any  process,  and  seemingly  our  assurance  is  an 
abiding  state  of  mind. 

IV.  The  Assurance  Given. 

1.  Suljectively  One. — While  assurance  is  the  result  of  a  twofold 
ONE  IN  CON-  witnessing,  yet  as  a  mental  state  it  is  single,  not 
sciousNEss.  (-[ouble.  It  is  such  notwithstanding  the  profound  dif- 
ference between  the  witnesses  and  the  modes  of  their  witnessing. 

'  Gal.  V,  16-25. 


ASSURANCE.  fiol 

There  is  not  one  form  of  assurance  from  the  witness  of  tlie  Spirit 
and  another  from  that  of  our  own  spirit,  but  a  single,  simple  state 
of  confidence  springing  from  the  joint  witnessing  of  the  two. 
There  is  nothing  really  singular  in  this.  Through  many  and  widely 
diverse  evidences  we  may  reach  the  certainty  of  some  truth  which 
deeply  concerns  us  ;  the  evidences  are  multiform,  but  in  the  eye  of 
consciousness  the  assurance  attained  is  purely  unitary.  So  the 
assurance  of  sonship  received  from  the  joint  testimony  of  the  two 
witnesses  is  subjectively  one. 

We  are  thus  prepared  even  easily  to  dispose  of  what  has  been 
regarded  as  a  very  serious  difficulty  respecting  the  wit-  light  on  a 
ness  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  a  fact  that  some  men  of  an  perplexity. 
intense  Christian  experience,  and  thoroughly  observant  of  all  the 
facts  of  their  religious  consciousness,  deny  a  direct  witness  of 
the  Spirit.  We  may  instance  Dr.  Chalmers  :  "  I  could  the  case  of 
not,  without  making  my  own  doctrine  outstrip  my  own  chalmers. 
experience,  vouch  for  any  other  intimation  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
than  that  which  he  gives  in  the  act  of  making  the  word  of  God 
clear  unto  you,  and  the  state  of  your  own  heart  clear  unto  you."' 
He  thus  limits  assurance,  just  as  in  a  passage  previously  cited  from 
him,  to  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit,  and  also  denies  to  his  own 
experience  all  recognition  of  a  direct  witness  of  the  yert  easily 
Holy  Spirit.  How  then  can  we  reconcile  this  denial  explained. 
with  the  fact  of  such  a  witness,  and  a  witness  surely  possessed  by 
the  great  and  good  Chalmers  himself  ?  Very  easily  on  our  own 
interpretation  of  the  doctrine.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  work  of 
assurance  the  Spirit  makes  no  direct  communication  to  the  intelli- 
gence, nor  in  any  way  reveals  himself,  but  simply  by  an  immediate 
operation  within  the  consciousness  produces  the  assurance  of  a  gra- 
cious sonship.  We  have  also  seen  that  the  two  witnessings  coalesce 
in  a  purely  unitary  state  of  assurance,  wherein  consciousness  ob- 
serves no  distinction  between  the  two.  Therefore  the  assurance  of 
Dr.  Chalmers  was  subjectively  the  very  same  that  it  would  have  been 
with  his  fullest  belief  in  the  fact  of  a  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit. 
Hence  there  was  nothing  in  his  experience  in  the  least  contrariety 
to  the  reality  of  such  a  witness. 

3.  Variable  in  Degree. — Assurance  admits  of  degrees  ;  and  there 
are  many  reasons  for  its  actual  variations.  In  the  instance  of  regen- 
eration, whereby  we  are  born  into  this  sonship,  many  reasons  for 
things  may  vary  the  strength  of  its  manifestation  in  our  variations. 
consciousness.  Prior  habits  of  life  are  very  different.  Tempera- 
ments widely  differ.  Some  are  gentle  in  their  emotional  nature  ; 
'  Lectures  on  Romans,  p.  276. 


352  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

others,  very  intense.  There  are  wide  differences  in  the  intensity 
of  conviction  and  contrition.  All  these  facts  must  have  a  deter- 
mining influence  upon  the  strength  of  our  assurance  of  the  new 
birth.  The  results  of  such  facts  must  enter  into  the  experiences  of 
our  Christian  life,  with  a  like  determining  influence  therein.  This 
is  specially  true  of  our  personal  temperament.  Some  are  timid, 
doubting,  hesitant,  respecting  their  own  spiritual  good ;  others  are 
joyous,  hopeful,  confident.  These  differences  must  greatly  vary 
the  strength  of  assurance. 

Then  there  are  wide  differences  in  the  actual  Christian  life,  dif- 
KEAsoNs  IN  ferences  in  the  depths  of  experience  and  the  measure  of 
ACTUAL  LIFE.  Spiritual  consecration.  The  assurance  of  sonship  must 
vary  accordingly.  The  witness  of  our  own  spirit  cannot  be  as 
strongly  assuring  where  the  experience  and  consecration  are  but 
slight  as  where  they  are  deep  and  full.  Further,  the  witness  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  must  usually  correspond  in  the  degree  of  its  strength 
with  that  of  our  own  sjjirit.  A  full  assurance  from  his  witnessing 
where  the  actual  Christian  life  is  in  a  low  state  would  not  only  be 
false  to  the  truth,  but  would  also  be  a  very  serious  peril  to  the  soul. 
Yet,  with  all  these  reasons  of  variation,  the  comfortable  assurance 
of  a  gracious  sonship  is  a  common  Christian  privilege. 

3.   Thorouglily  Valid. — The  Holy  Spirit  is  surely  a  thoroughly 

competent  and  trustworthy  witness.     Through  his  own  agency  are 

we  born  into  this  sonship,  and  he  must  have  perfect 

FROM  THE  WIT-  ^  '    .  ^ 

NESS  OF  THE  kuowlcdge  of  the  result  of  his  own  work.  When,  there- 
spiRiT.  fore,  by  an  immediate  operation  within  our  religious 

consciousness  he  assures  us  of  this  sonship,  there  can  be  no  error  in 
his  witnessing.  As  by  immediate  inspiration,  and  in  a  manner  en- 
tirely apart  from  the  usual  modes  of  knowledge,  he  gave  to  prophets 
and  apostles  the  highest  forms  of  divine  truth,  and  the  knowledge 
of  events  both  past  and  future  ;  as  by  direct  action  upon  the  moral 
NO  ERROR  feelings  he  produces  the  deep  sense  of  sin  and  peril;  so 
THEREIN.  in  a  like  mode  of  his  agency  he  can  and  does  produce 

in  our  religious  consciousness  the  assurance  that  we  are  the  children 
of  God.  In  this  gracious  work  neither  mistake  nor  deception  is 
possible  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  assurance  which  he  gives  is 
thoroughly  valid. 

We  have  already  explained  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit,  and 
FROM  THE  WIT-  ^^^^  prcscut  it  slmply  in  the  light  of  its  validity.  The 
NESS  OF  OUR  Scripture  notes  of  this  sonship  are  surely  true  ;  and  they 
OWN  SPIRIT.  g^j.g  g^  clearly  and  fully  given  that  we  may  surely  know 
them.  Then  all  that  we  further  require  is  such  a  knowledge  of  like 
facts  in  our  own  experience  that  we  may  know  their  agreement  with 


ASSURANCE.  353 

those  Scripture  notes.  Can  we  have  such  knowledge  of  these  facts? 
Surely  we  can;  and  for  the  reason  that  they  are  facts  of  experience. 
In  the  very  nature  of  them  they  must  be  such.  Only  througli  a 
very  great  change  do  we  enter  into  tliis  sonship.  There  is  a  transi- 
tion from  darkness  into  light ;  from  death  into  life  ;  from  the  bond- 
age of  sin  into  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel ;  from  condemnation  into 
peace  with  God  ;  from  the  unrest  and  trouble  of  sin  into  a  reposing 
trust  in  his  love.  Such  a  transition  must  clearly  manifest  itself  in 
our  deepest  consciousness.  These  new  experiences  abide  with  us 
in  our  Christian  life,  and  daily  manifest  themselves  in  our  con- 
sciousness. When  therefore  we  institute  a  comparison  of  these 
surely  known  facts  of  experience  with  the  Scripture  notes  of  this 
gracious  sonship,  and  find  their  close  agreement  clearly  open  to  our 
view,  then  the  witness  of  our  own  spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of 
God  must  be  thoroughly  trustworthy.  With  the  joint  testimony 
of  two  such  witnesses  assurance  itself  is  thoroughly  valid. 

Wesley  :  Sennons,  x-xii  ;  Chalmers  :  On  Romans,  lect.  liv  ;  Sherlock  :  Works, 
vol.  i,  Discourse  viii ;  Walton  :  Witness  of  the  Spirit ;  Watson  :  Sermons,  civ  ; 
Prest :  The  Witness  of  the  Spirit ;  Davies  :  Treatise  on  Justification,  lect.  x ; 
Young :  The  Witness  of  the  Spirit,  Fernley  Lecture,  1883 ;  Bishop  Merrill :  As- 
pects  of  Christian  Experience,  chap.  x. 


354  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

SANCTIFICATION. 

The  term  sanctification  is  in  frequent  use,  particularly  with 
Methodists,  for  the  expression  of  a  full  salvation  or  a  completeness 
INADEQUACY  ^^  ^^^  Chrlstiau  life.  It  is  not  in  itself  adequate  to  such 
OF  THE  TERM,  exprcssiou,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  often  used  in  Script- 
ure in  a  lower  sense,  or  without  the  idea  of  completeness.'  Hence 
in  its  doctrinal  use  it  is  often  accompanied  with  the  word  entire  ;  so 
that  the  full  expression  is  entire  sanctification.  This  is  not  without 
warrant  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul  wherein  he  prayed  that  the  Chris- 
tians of  Thessalonica  might  be  wholly  sanctified. ° 

Other  words  or  formulas  are  also  in  use:  such  as  holiness.  Chris- 
tian perfection,  the  higher  Christian  life.  Christian 
purity,  love  enthroned ;  but  such  formulas  are  merely 
representative  of  the  doctrine,  not  the  full  expression  of  its  content. 
Hence,  which  shall  be  used  is  a  matter  of  mere  individual  prefer- 
ence.    The  doctrine  itself  is  the  question  of  interest. 

I.  Meaning  of  Sanctification. 

Holiness  in  man  is  a  moral  or  religious  state ;  sanctification,  a 
THE  IDEA  OF  graclous  work  of  God  whereby  that  state  is  produced. 
HOLINESS.  The  idea  of  the  divine  holiness  underlies  that  of  human 
holiness.  Without  the  former  there  is  no  place  for  the  latter. 
That  God  is  holy  is  a  reason  for  holiness  in  ourselves  :  "  Because 
it  is  written.  Be  ye  holy  ;  for  I  am  holy."  ^  There  was  no  such  an 
idea  in  Greek  thought ;  not  even  the  idea  of  the  divine  holiness. 
This  being  the  case,  there  could  be  no  such  reason  in  the  Greek 
mind  for  personal  holiness.  Hence  new  meanings  were  necessary 
to  the  Greek  words  appropriated  for  the  expression  of  these  purely 
biblical  ideas.* 

As  the  divine  holiness  is  a  reason  for  Christian  holiness  there 
LIKENESS  AND  must  be  a  likeness  between  the  two.  This  is  possible 
DIFFERENCE,  notwithstaudiug  the  infinite  fullness  of  the  one  and  the 
narrow  limitations  of  the  other — just  as  it  was  possible  for  man  to 

'  Wesley  :  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection,  pp.  50,  51. 

«  1  Thess.  V,  23.  « 1  Pet.  i,  16. 

*  Cremer  :  Bibli co-Theological  Lexicon  of  New  Testament  Greek,  "Ayiog. 


SANCTIFICATION.  355 

be  originally  created  in  the  image  or  likeness  of  God.  However, 
no  trne  view  of  the  subject  can  ever  overlook  that  difference. 
There  is  another  point  of  difference:  the  divine  holiness  is  an  eter- 
nal possession,  while  Christian  holiness  is  always  an  attainment. 
The  latter  fact  gives  propriety  to  the  use  of  the  word  sanctification, 
wiiich  means  a  holiness  wrought  in  us  by  a  gracious  work  of  God. 

A  thorough  study  of  the  biblical  terms  of  sanctification  might 
be  helpful  in  this  discussion,  but  it  would  require  an  study  of  bib- 
elaboration  for  which  we  have  no  room.  There  are  lical  terms. 
convenient  sources  of  information  for  any  who  may  wish  to  engage 
in  this  study.'  It  will  suffice  for  our  own  purpose  that  we  treat 
such  terms  as  we  have  occasion  to  set  forth  their  meaning. 

1.  Ceremonial  Sanctification. — While  the  terms  of  sanctification 
have  a  far  deeper  meaning,  as  we  shall  point  out,  they  are  some- 
times used  in  the  sense  of  a  setting  apart  from  secular  to  sacred 
uses,  a  consecration  to  God  and  religion.  Here  the  meaning  is  the 
same  in  application  to  both  things  and  persons.  Thus  ofthingsand 
places,  altars,  offerings,  the  tabernacle,  and  the  temple  persons. 
were  sanctified.  In  the  same  sense  there  was  a  sanctification  of  the 
priests,  and  also  of  the  Jewish  people.  The  verb  dymi^w  is  thus 
used.*  Even  our  Lord  was  thus  sanctified.'  Here,  however,  all 
idea  of  any  prior  ceremonial  impurity  is  utterly  excluded.  The 
word  djLog,  which  expresses  the  result  or  state  of  sanctification,  is 
used  in  like  manner  ;  that  is,  in  the  sense  of  a  ceremonial  sanctifica- 
tion of  both  things  and  persons."  While  such  a  form 
of  sanctification  is  without  any  strictly  ethical  charac- 
ter, yet  it  served  a  valuable  purpose  in  the  Hebraic  economy.  It 
was  a  primary  lesson  in  the  divine  education  of  the  Hebrew  people 
up  to  the  true  idea  of  holiness.^ 

We  may  here  note  the  fact  that  these  terms  of  sanctification  are 
sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of  veneration  or  reverence.  as  rever- 
They  thus  mean  a  devout  and  worshipful  state  of  mind  ^'*^^- 
respecting  God.  Here  is  an  instance :  "  This  is  it  that  the  Lord 
spake,  saying,  I  will  be  sanctified  in  them  that  come  nigh  me.*'  * 
The  trisayio7i  of  Isaiah — "  Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  of  hosts  " — 
is  the  expression  of  adoring  reverence.'     The  first  petition  in  our 

'  Lexicons  of  the  Greek  Testament,  severally  by  Cremer,  Robinson,  and 
Thayer  ;  Lowrey  :  The  Possibilities  of  Grace,  pp.  42-66  ;  Beet :  Holiness  as  Un- 
derstood by  the  WHters  of  the  Bible  ;  Franklin  :  Review  of  Wesleyan  Perfection, 
part  ii. 

•^  Lev.  viii,  10-12  ;  Matt,  xxiii,  17,  19 ;  2  Tim.  ii,  21. 

'  John  X,  36.  *  Matt,  vii,  6  ;  xxiv,  15  ;  Luke  ii,  23  ;  Acts  vll,  33. 

*  Walker  :  Philosophy  of  the  Plan  of  Salvation,  chap.  vii. 

*  Lev.  X,  3.  '  Isa.  vi,  3. 


356  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Lord's  Prayer — "  Hallowed  be  thy  name  " — ayiaadriTU)  to  dvofiv 
aov — is  replete  with  the  same  spirit.'  Such  too  is  the  meaning  of 
the  commandment :  ''  But  sanctify  the  Lord  God  in  your  hearts."^ 
Such  an  adoring  reverence  is  possible  only  with  a  deep  sense  of 
ONLY  OF  THE  thc  diviiic  hoHncss.  There  is  much  in  the  greatness 
HOLY.  g^^^(j  majesty  of  God,  much  in  his  mighty  works,  much 

in  the  thought  of  his  infinite  knowledge  and  power,  to  awaken  ad- 
miration and  awe  ;  much  in  his  justice  to  inspire  fear  ;  much  in  his 
love  to  kindle  a  grateful  love  in  us  ;  but  not  without  the  sense  of 
his  absolute  holiness  can  we  bow  to  him  in  adoring  reverence.  This 
is  the  spirit  of  the  heavenly  worship  :  "  Holy,  holy,  holy.  Lord  God 
Almighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come. "  ^ 

2.  Deeper  Moral  Sense. — The  distinction  here  is  between  the 
ceremonial  and  the  moral  forms  of  sanctification.  The  first  is 
outward  and  official ;  the  second,  inward  and  of  the  moral  and  re- 
ligious nature. 

Eegeneration  furnishes  the  best  exemplification  of  this  work. 
BEST  EXEMPLI-  ^^  tlic  full  cxtcut  of  It,  rcgcneration  is  of  the  nature 
FicATioN.  qI  sanctification.  This  was  shown  in  our  treatment  of 
that  subject.  It  must  be  such  from  the  very  ground  of  its  neces- 
sity, which  lies  in  the  depravity  or  corruption  of  our  moral  nature. 
The  removal  of  this  corruption  is  possible  only  through  an  interior 
purification.  Such  purification  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
regeneration,  so  far  as  it  is  therein  accomplished.  It  is  hence  true 
that,  in  the  full  extent  of  it,  regeneration  is  of  the  nature  of  sanc- 
tification ;  and  whatever  be  the  work  of  sanctification,  as  distinct- 
ively held,  it  cannot  be  different  in  kind.  Certainly  we  have  in 
regeneration  the  best  exemplification  of  its  nature. 

3.  Entire  Sanctification. — The  meaning  of  entire  sanctification 
is  obvious  in  the  light  of  what  has  preceded.  If  regeneration 
were  so  thorough  as  to  complete  the  subjective  purification  there 
could  be  no  place  for  the  special  work  of  sanctification.  In  case 
of  serious  degeneration,  as  in  some  instances  in  the  churches  of 
Corinth  and  Galatia,  there  would  be  need  of  a  renewed  purifica- 
tion ;  but  it  would  be  accomplished  by  a  renewed  work  of  regenera- 
tion, if  regeneration  were  primarily  complete  sanctification.  The 
REGENERATION  thcory  thcu  is  that  regeneration  is  not  in  its  primary 
INCOMPLETE,  work  completc  sanctification  ;  that  it  does  not  imme- 
diately produce  a  fullness  of  the  inner  spiritual  life.     The  doctrine 

is  under  no  necessity  of  assuming  that  this  is  never  the 

EXCEPTIONS.  ,-11  £  J.T,  T.-       J.-  J.    i.       • 

case,  particularly  so  tar  as  the  subjective  state  is  con- 
cerned.     We  could  not  affirm  that  there  are  no  exceptions ;  and, 
'  Matt,  vi,  9.  2  I  Pet.  iii,  15.  3  Rgv.  iv,  8. 


SANCTIFICATION.  .357 

not  only  for  the  reason  that  we  see  no  doctrinal  necessity  for  it,  but 
also  because  some,  even  from  the  hour  of  their  conversion,  give 
constant  proof  of  a  fullness  of  the  spiritual  life,  if  not  in  its  ma- 
turity yet  in  its  entirety.  Mr.  Wesley  himself  never  denied  the'\ 
possibility,  nor  even  the  actuality,  of  such  instances,  though  he 
thought  them  rare,  even  if  ever  actual.  The  common  fact  is  that'' 
of  incompleteness.  Hence  it  is  the  definite  work  of  entire  sancti- 
fication  to  complete  the  subjective  purification.  So  far  the  state- 
ment is  simple  and  easily  made ;  but  a  philosophy  of  the  facts  is  no 
easy  attainment.  They  will  be  more  fully  considered  in  the  next 
section. 

4.  Tioo  Spheres  of  the  Sanctification. — We  think  it  important  to 
observe  that  there  are  two  spheres  of  sanctification,  as  the  doctrine  is 
distinctively  held  :  one  within  the  moral  nature  ;  the  other  within 
the  actual  Christian  life.  The  two  are  closely  related,  the  former 
being  the  necessary  ground  of  the  latter.  Only  as  the  nature  is 
sanctified  can  the  life  be  in  holiness.  But  the  perfection  or  ma- 
turity of  the  Christian  graces  is  not  an  immediate  product  of  the 
subiective  purification.     Hence  the  importance  of  dis- 

^  r  r  IMPORTANCE 

tinguishing  the  two  spheres,  so  that  we  shall  not  fall  of  the  dis- 
into  the  error  of  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  an  instant  ti^ction. 
attainment  of  perfection  in  such  graces.  Here  the  law  of  growth 
must  be  admitted.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  light  of  this  dis- 
tinction we  may  see  the  more  clearly  the  possibility  of  an  instant 
subjective  purification. 

II.    SAN"CTIFICATIO]Sr  OF   THE   NATURE. 

1.  Incomplete  in  Regeneration. — The  doctrine  of  an  incomplete- 
nesb  of  the  work  of  regeneration  underlies  that  of  en-  ^fie  catholic 
tire  sanctification,  particularly  in  its  Wesleyan  form,  doctrine. 
1  Without  such  incompleteness  there  could  be  no  place  for  the  defi- 
nite second-blessing  view.  That  somewhat  of  depravity  remains  in 
the  regenerate,  or  that  regeneration  does  not  bring  to  completeness 
the  inner  spiritual  life,  is  a  widely  accepted  doctrine.  Indeed,  ex- 
ceptions are  so  few  that  the  doctrine  must  be  regarded  as  truly 
catholic.  However,  it  does  not  necessarily  carry  with  it  the  doc- 
trine of  entire  sanctification  as  a  possible  attainment  in  the  present 
life.  Hence  many  who  hold  the  former  deny  the  latter.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  impossibility  of  such  sanctification  is  no  consequence 
of  the  incompleteness  of  regeneration.  The  grace  which  therein  I 
so  largely  purifies  our  nature  surely  can  wholly  cleanse  it.  Hence  ' 
there  is  place  for  the  doctrine  of  entire  sanctification  as  an  attain- 
able blessing  in  the  present  life. 

25  " 


358  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

The  question  of  a  remnant  of  depravity  is  not  without  perples- 
NOT  WITHOUT  i^j.  As  the  nature  of  depravity  as  a  whole  is  difficult 
PERPLEXITY,  for  thought,  so  that  of  a  remnant,  not  different  in  kind 
from  the  whole,  is  difficult.  Consequently,  there  is  perplexity  in 
the  notion  of  entire  sanctification. 

It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  Scriptures  represent  the  cor- 
FiGURATivE  ruption  or  depravity  of  human  nature  in  figurative 
EXPRESSIONS,  forms,  nor  that  the  figures  are  taken  from  the  physical 
plane.  The  same  is  true  of  the  forms  in  which  the  cleansing  or 
purification  of  the  soul  is  expressed.  Thus  the  subjective  state  of 
evil  is  represented  as  one  of  filthiness  or  uncleanness  ;  and,  accord- 
ingly, the  sanctification  is  represented  as  a  cleansing  or  washing 
or  purifying.^  But  for  any  true  conception  of  either  the  corruption 
or  the  cleansing  we  must  look  through  the  physical  imagery  and 
seek  to  grasj)  in  thought  the  spiritual  realities  which  it  represents. 
Here,  however,  is  the  very  point  of  difficulty — the  difficulty  of 
grasping  in  clear  thought  the  spiritual  things  which  lie  back  of 
these  physical  representations. 

If  depravity  existed  in  the  soul  in  the  form  of  a  substance,  as 
AviTY  poison  exists  in  a  living  body,  or  alien  elements  in  water, 
NOT  A  SUB-  or  alloy  in  gold,  not  only  the  notion  of  its  nature,  but 
STANCK.  ^igQ  ^YiQ  notion  of  sanctification,  and  whether  in  part  or 

in  whole,  would  be  simple.  Eemove  all  the  poison  from  the  living 
body,  all  alien  elements  from  the  water,  all  alloy  from  the  gold,  and 
in  each  case  the  purification  is  complete.  In  such  a  sense  the  re- 
moval of  all  remnants  of  depravity  would  be  entire  sanctification. 
A  MORAL  ^^^^  ^^®  view  is  purely  physical,  and  hence  can  afford  no 

STATE.  clearness  of  conception.     It  is  too  Manichaean  for  any 

truly  Christian  theology.  Depravity  is  a  moral  state  of  the  soul, 
not  a  substance  within  it.  These  facts  should  not  be  overlooked  in 
the  treatment  of  entire  sanctification.  They  clearly  show  that, 
whatever  the  certainty  of  its  possibility,  or  even  of  its  actuality,  the 
nature  of  it  cannot  be  directly  apprehended  in  thought.  The  rep- 
etitious use  of  the  figurative  terms  respecting  remnants,  and  roots, 
and  alloys,  and  sediments  cannot  exactly  define  the  incompleteness 
of  regeneration  ;  nor  can  such  use  of  the  physical  terms  of  washing 
USELESS  AS-  ^^^  eradication  exactly  define  the  purely  spiritual  work 
SUMPTION.  of  entire  sanctification.  It  is  useless  to  assume  an  un- 
attainable clearness  of  view  on  these  questions  ;  and  the  proper 
recognition  of  such  obscurity  as  we  have  pointed  out  might  save  us 
from  unseemly  pretensions,  not  only  to  a  perfect  conception  of  the 
inner  nature  of  sanctification,  but  also  to  an  actual  presentation  of 
'  Psa.  li,  2,  7  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi,  25  ;  1  Cor.  vi,  11  ;  2  Cor.  vii,  1. 


SANCTIFICATION.  359 

it  with  perfect  clearness  both  in  itself  and  in  its  distinction  from 
regeneration. 

Some  clearly  see  the  obscurity  at  this  point ;  if  not  in  their  own 
view,  yet  in  the  view  of  others.  "  In  entering,  some  obscurity  ov 
years  since,  upon  a  re-examination  of  the  difficult  sub-  treatment. 
jeet  of  holiness,  I  found  that  all  the  light  which  I  had  previously 
received,  whether  from  reading,  instruction,  or  meditation,  was  in- 
adequate to  the  demands  of  my  own  reason,  and  also  to  answer 
the  numerous  inquiries  propounded  to  me  by  my  discriminating 
pupils.  Unsatisfied  and  wearied  with  all  that  I  had  ever  seen  or 
heard  in  explanation  of  its  unexplained  mysteries,  I  sat  down,  not 
to  reading  and  collating,  but  to  patient  and  prayerful  thought. "  ' 
These  are  the  utterances  of  a  mind  thoroughly  candid  in  temper, 
rarely  acute  in  analytic  power,  and  clear  in  philosophic  insight. 
Their  date  is  1871.  To  the  mind  of  Dr.  McCabe  such  was  then 
the  obscurity  of  this  subject  in  all  former  presentations  of  it. 

"  Every  effort  I  have  made  to  define  clearly  to  my  own  mind 
precisely  what  is  meant  by  sin  in  believers  has  deepened  further 
the  conviction  that  the  subject  is  one  of  manifold  diffi-  testimony. 
culty,  and  about  which  there  is  great  confusedness  of  thought.  I 
find  evidences  of  obscurity  in  all  the  writings  about  it.  The  most 
eminent  divines  are  not  clear.  They  all  agree  in  the  fact ;  but  when 
they  attempt  to  explain  they  become  confused.  The  difficulty  is 
to  make  plain  what  that  sin  is  from  which  Christian  men  are  not 
free,  which  remains  in,  or  is  found  still  cleaving  to,  believers ;  how 
to  discriminate  between  the  some  sin  that  is  removed  in  regenera- 
tion and  the  some  sin  that  remains.  And  it  is  just  around  this 
point  that  revolves  the  whole  question  of  entire  sanctification,  both 
as  to  what  it  is  and  its  possibility. "  *  Such  are  the  statements  of 
this  writer  after  a  careful  study  of  our  best  authorities  on  the  ques- 
tion. Surely  these  testimonies  strongly  favor  the  suggestion  of 
less  pretension  to  a  thorough  clearness  of  the  doctrine. 

However,  as  the  truth  of  native  depravity  is  not  conditioned  on 
a  capacity  in  us  fully  to  apprehend  it,  or  clearly  inter-  the  truth  not 
pret  it  in  thought,  so  the  truth  of  a  remnant  of  deprav-  affected. 
ity  after  regeneration  is  not  so  conditioned.  In  each  case  the  inner 
state  may  be  known  through  its  activities,  as  manifest  in  our  con- 
sciousness. There  is  another  mode  of  information.  By  the  obser- 
vation of  others,  as  to  their  tempers,  words,  and  acts,  we  gain  an  in- 
sight into  their  inner  nature,  and  may  thus  know  its  characteristic 
tendencies,  whether  to  the  good  or  the  evil.     In  such  manner  we 

'  McCabe  :  Light  on  the  Pathwwj  of  Holiness,  p.  3. 
'^  Fostex- :  Christian  Pu)Hty,  p.  117. 


360  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

may  have  the  proof  of  a  remnant  of  depravity,  whatever  its  own  ob- 
scurity for  thought.  Hence  there  is  here  no  mystery  in  the  dis- 
tinctive doctrine  of  entire  sanctification  which  should  discredit  its 
reality,  just  as  there  is  no  mystery  of  regeneration  which  should 
discredit  the  reality  of  a  large  measure  of  sanctification  therein. 
On  the  broadest  distinction  there  is  for  us  the  possibility  of  two 
lives — two  alternatively  :  one  in  the  flesh  ;  the  other  in 

TWO  LIVES  AL-  .     .  -^         .  ,  ' 

TERNATivELT  thc  Spirit.  Thc  latter  is  possible  only  through  the 
POSSIBLE.  presence  of  the  Spirit  as  a  renewing  and  purifying  power 
in  the  soul ;  the  former,  inevitable  in  his  absence.  This  does  not 
mean  that  the  subjective  state  of  all  in  each  class  is  precisely  the 
same.  If  we  judge  the  inner  state  of  the  unregenerate  simply  by 
the  outer  life  we  shall  be  constrained  to  admit  wide  differences 
therein,  or  at  least  the  presence  of  moral  forces  which  in  many  in- 
stances greatly  restrain  the  natural  tendencies  of  such  a  state.  The 
real  truth  is  that,  with  the  reality  of  a  common  native  depravity, 
DIFFERENCES  ^^^^^  ^^'^  dcgrccs  of  moral  perversity.  So,  if  we  judge 
iNTHEREGEN-  thc  Inucr  state  of  the  regenerate  by  the  outer  life,  we 
ERATE  LIFE.  jj^^g^  admit  tlic  truth  of  differences  therein  ;  that  the 
spiritual  life  is  far  deeper  in  some  than  in  others.  There  may  be 
such  a  work  of  the  Spirit  within  the  soul  as  shall  give  completeness 
to  the  inner  spiritual  life  ;  but  such  completeness  is  rarely  the  work 
of  regeneration.  This  is  the  view  which  underlies  the  distinctive 
doctrine  of  sanctification. 

If  direct  proof  of  an  incompleteness  of  regeneration,  such  as  con- 
pRooF  OF  IN-  stitutes  a  necessity  for  the  distinct  work  of  sanctifica- 
coMPLETE-  tion,  be  demanded,  what  shall  we  offer  ?  We  can 
hardly  pretend  to  any  direct  or  formal  Scripture 
statement  of  such  a  fact.  There  are  very  definite  statements  re- 
scRiPTDRENOT  spectlug  botli  tlic  ncccssity  and  nature  of  justification, 
EXPLICIT.  also  respecting  the  necessity  and  nature  of  regeneration. 

On  the  latter  question  we  may  instance  the  words  of  our  Lord.^ 
Here  the  necessity  for  regeneration  is  definitely  stated  as  lying  in 
an  inherited  depravity  of  nature ;  but  not  in  all  the  Scriptures  is 
there  any  such  statement  respecting  a  necessity  for  sanctification  as 
lying  in  an  incompleteness  of  regeneration.  Certainly  the  truth 
of  this  statement  cannot  be  questioned.  What  then?  Is  it  a  truth 
which  is  adverse  to  the  doctrine  of  sanctification?  No,  not  to  the 
real  truth  of  the  doctrine  ;  though  it  may  be  adverse  to  some  unwise 
WEAKNESS  IN  tcachlug  rcspectlng  it.  The  assumption  of  a  definite- 
TEACHiNG.  ness  which  cannot  be  shown,  and  which  does  not  exist, 
must  be  a  weakness  in  any  teaching.     There  is  such  a  weakness  of 

'  John  iii,  3-7. 


SANCTIFICATION.  361 

more  or  less  teacliiiig  on  this  question.  The  failure  to  show  the 
assumed  definiteness  in  the  Scripture  ground  of  the  doctrine  is,  in 
the  view  of  many,  the  disproof  of  the  doctrine.  Here  is  the  point 
Avhere  many  halt. 

We  might  adduce  the  consciousness  of  the  newly  regenerate,  or 
even  of  the  regenerate  generally,  in  T)roof  of  an  incom- 

°  ?  ^r  CONSCIOUS- 

pleteness  of  regeneration.  Mostly,  such  have  inner  ness  of  the 
conflicts  which  accord  with  such  incompleteness,  and  '^*^«'''N'''Rate. 
which  would  he  out  of  accord  with  a  state  of  entire  sanctification. 
But  we  have  already  considered  the  question  whether  the  Christian 
consciousness  is  a  source  of  theology,  and  found  it  not  to  be  such; 
hence  we  cannot  admit  it  to  a  place  of  authority  in  this  case.  The 
Christian  consciousness  has  its  value  for  theology,  not,  however,  as 
its  source,  but  as  confirmatory  of  its  doctrines.  It  is  confirmatory 
of  any  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  with  which  it  is  in  strict  accord. 
But  the  Scriptures  themselves  must  furnish  the  doctrine  before  the 
accordance  can  be  known  or  the  affirmation  be  of  any  doctrinal 
value.  This  is  a  principle  which  is  not  always  proj^erly  observed. 
AVe  mean  no  doctrinal  dissent  from  Mr.  Wesley  if  we  say  that  in 
some  instances,  as  recorded  in  his  Plain  Account  of  individual 
Christian  Perfection,  he  gave  too  much  doctrinal  professions. 
weight  to  individual  professions  of  exjaerience.  That  he  so  did  is 
manifest  in  modifications  of  his  own  views. 

But,  while  the  Scriptures  are  without  any  explicit  or  formal  ut- 
terance of  an  incompleteness  of  regeneration,  yet  the  the  implicit 
idea  is  clearly  present  in  many  forms  of  words  respect-  truth. 
ing  the  new  regenerate  life,  or  even  the  regenerate  life  generally  ; 
so  that  the  doctrine  of  such  incompleteness  may  fairly  claim  for 
itself  a  sure  basis  in  the  Scriptures.  Now,  with  the  doctrine  so 
found  in  the  Scriptures,  we  may  validly  adduce  the  facts  of  Chris- 
tian experience  in  its  affirmation.  There  is  widely  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  regenerate  a  sense  of  incompleteness  in  their  spiritual 
life ;  a  sense  of  the  lack  of  that  fullness  which  is  the  happy  expe- 
rience of  some  Christians,  and  which  must  be  the  common  privi- 
lege of  believers.  The  doctrine  thus  grounded  in  the  Scriptures 
and  affirmed  by  the  common  Christian  consciousness  may  easily 
command  the  common  Christian  faith,  and  be  accepted  as  a  doc- 
trine of  the  weightiest  practical  concern.  So  far  the  elements  of 
the  doctrine  of  sanctification  are  clear  and  sure. 

However,  it  should  not  be  thought  strange  that  some  question 

the  truth  of  this  doctrine,  or  even  oppose  it.     On  the  face  of  the 

♦Scriptures  not  a  few  things  are  seemingly  against  it.     Other  facts 

aside,  we  would  most  naturally  think  of  regeneration  as  a  complete 
25 


362  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

work  of  subjective  purification.     As  we  are  born  of  the  Spirit,  so 
do  we  receive  the  impress  of  his  own  likeness.     "  That 

SEEMINGLY  -■■ 

AGAINST  THE  which  is  bom  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  — in  the  sense  of 
DOCTRINE.  depravity;  and  ^' that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit " — in  the  sense  of  holiness.'  If  the  likeness  is  complete  in  the 
former  case,  why  not  in  the  latter?  "  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing 
out  of  an  unclean?"  "What  is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean? 
and  he  which  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous?"* 
AVe  thus  prove  the  native  depravity  of  the  race.  Conversely,  then, 
why  should  any  uncleanness  remain  in  the  soul  when  it  is  born  of 
the  Holy  Spirit?  Further,  it  is  clearly  true  that  not  a  few  texts 
adduced  in  proof  of  entire  sanctification  in  some  instances  express 
simply  the  regenerate  state;  and  if  they  mean  a  complete  work  in 
the  one  case,  why  should  they  mean  an  incomplete  work  in  the 
other?  Much  might  be  added  in  the  same  line.  How- 
ever, the  aim  of  these  remarks  is  not  to  support  this 
view,  and  thus  to  overthrow  what  we  have  before  maintained,  but 
rather  to  show  a  reason  for  charity  toward  such  as  do  not  accept 
it.  They  can  hardly  question  the  possibility  of  more  or  less  degen- 
eration in  the  regenerate  life,  and  in  such  case  must  admit  the  need 
of  its  renewal.  And  if,  with  the  completeness  of  regeneration, 
they  hold,  not  only  the  possibility  of  such  degeneration  and  the 
need  of  such  renewal,  but  also  the  common  privilege  and  duty  of  a 
wholly  sanctified  and  consecrated  life,  they  hold  what  is  most  vital 
in  the  doctrine  of  sanctification,  and  should  be  regarded  as  its 
friends,  not  as  its  enemies. 

2.  Completion  in  Sanctification. — The  one  distinction  of  entire 
THE  ONE  Dis-  sauctificatiou,  as  compared  with  regeneration,  lies  in  its 
TiNCTioN.  completeness.  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  gra- 
ciously wrought  in  the  soul,  is  the  same  in  kind  in  both.  This  fact 
opens  the  way  to  a  clearer  view  of  entire  sanctification.  As  regen- 
eration is,  in  the  full  extent  of  it,  a  purification  of  the  nature,  or  an 
invigoration  of  the  moral  and  religious  powers,  or  both,  so  entire 
sanctification  is  a  completion  of  the  gracious  work. 

So  far  as  we  may  grasp  in  thought  the  work  of  regeneration,  we 
HOW  REACHED  uiay  also  grasp  that  of  entire  sanctification.  As  before 
IN  THOUGHT,  statcd,  wc  havo  no  direct  insight  into  the  nature  of  de- 
pravity; but  its  characteristic  tendencies  or  forms  of  activity  are 
open  to  our  observation ;  and  so  far  as  such  facts  are  an  expres- 
As  IN  NATURAL  slou  of  that  naturo  we  come  to  know  what  it  is.  Much 
HISTORY.  of  the  natural  history  of  man  rests  upon  such  ground. 

The  same  is  true  respecting  the  natural  history  of  the  animal 
'  John  iii,  6.  '  Job  xiv,  4 ;  xv,  14. 


SANCTIFK'ATION.  363 

orders.  Througli  the  observation  of  their  habits  of  life  we  reacli  a 
clear  notion  of  the  tendencies  of  their  nature.  We  thus  know  the 
ferocity  of  the  tiger  and  the  gentleness  of  the  lamb.  In  like  man- 
ner we  know  the  subjective  state  of  depravity  in  man ;  and  so  far 
we  may  know  what  must  be  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  puri- 
fication. Further,  while  we  cannot  accompany  the  Spirit  as  direct 
witnesses  of  his  work  within  the  soul,  we  may  know  its  nature  in 
the  gracious  fruits  which  immediately  spring  from  it,  as  we  observe 
them  in  the  new  life  of  its  subjects.  Indeed,  we  have  a  far  deeper 
source  of  knowledge,  even  tliat  of  a  conscious  experience  of  the 
change  thus  wrought — a  change  so  thorough  that  old  things  pass 
away  and  all  things  become  new.' 

We  have  no  instance  of  any  such  change  among  the  animal  or- 
ders, and  hence  no  illustration  therein  of  this  gracious 
work.  The  nature  of  the  tiger  is  never  changed  into 
that  of  the  lamb.  Whatever  the  seeming  docility  induced  by 
methods  of  training,  they  are  as  powerless  for  the  effectuation  of 
any  real  change  of  his  nature  as  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  lamb 
which  for  the  hour  may  appease  his  voracious  hunger.  But 
among  men  there  are  innumerable  examples  of  the  transforming 
power  of  regeneration  ;  indeed,  innumerable  witnesses  of  its  actual 
experience. 

The  facts  thus  presented  are  equally  applicable  to  the  work  of 
entire  sanctification.  If  somewhat  of  depravity  remains  in  the  case 
in  the  regenerate,  or  there  be  any  lack  of  thoroughness  sanctifica- 
iu  the  invigoration  of  the  moral  and  religious  powers,  tion. 
there  is  need  of  a  deeper  work,  that  both  the  cleansing  and  the  in- 
vigoration may  be  complete.  The  need  is  the  same  in  kind  as  in 
the  case  of  regeneration,  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  same, 
j  As  in  a  very  large  measure  the  work  is  wrought  in  regeneration,  so 
is  it  completed  in  entire  sanctification.  The  clearer  spiritual  dis- 
cernment, the  easier  victory  over  temptation,  the  greater  strength 
unto  duty,  the  intenser  love,  and  the  closer  communion  with  God 
answer  to  that  completion.  There  are  many  examples  of  such  a 
complete  work,  many  witnesses  to  its  attainment. 

Is  the  inner  work  of  entire  sanctification  in  the  mode  of  repres- 
sion or  in  that  of  eradication  ?  Such  a  question  is  in  issue  mode  of  the 
among  the  friends  of  the  doctrine.  Any  thorough  so-  i^'^^r  work. 
lution  of  it  would  require  an  insight  into  the  metaphysical  nature  of 
depravity,  and  also  into  the  metaphysical  nature  of  regeneration, 
which  we  do  not  possess,  and  unto  which  we  cannot  attain. 

Bishop    Foster    clearly  holds   the    view   of    repression  ;  '    also 
'  2  Cor.  V,  17.  '  Christian  Purity,  p.  74. 


364  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Beet.'  Dr.  Whedon  is  in  full  agreement  with  them:  "'Washed 
THEORY  OF  RE-  tlielr  robes ' — ^purified  their  characters.  This  is  a  very 
pREssioN.  vivid  image  of  sanctification  through  the  atonement. 
It  illustrates  how  deep  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  maintained  in 
the  Apocalypse.  But  we  must  look  through  the  intense  imagery  at 
the  literal  fact,  and  not  allow  our  imagination  to  be  lost  in  the 
imagery.  There  is  no  literal  robe,  no  literal  washing  of  the  robe  in 
blood.  What  is  true  is  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  and  through 
the  merit  of  his  atonement  the  Holy  Spirit  is  bestowed  upon  us, 
giving  us  power  to  resist  temptation,  to  repress  our  disordered  affec- 
tions, and  bring  all  into  obedience  to  the  law  of  Christ.  And  that 
is  sanctification.^^  ^  In  this  characterization  of  the  inner  work  of 
sanctification  there  is  no  word  which  means  eradication,  but  there 
are  words  which  mean  repression  or  subjugation. 

On  the  other  hand.  Dr.  Lowrey  maintains  the  side  of  eradication. 
THEORY  OF  Hls  vlcw  Is  sct  f orth  in  a  criticism  of  the  passage  above 
ERADICATION,  cltcd  f  rom  Dr.  Whedon:  '' The  first  part  of  the  note 
is  a  proper  caution.  But  the  doctrine  of  repression  brought  out  in 
the  second  part,  as  definitive  of  sanctification,  we  must  pronounce 
extremely  erroneous.  And  to  the  positive  assertion,  'And  that  is 
mnctificatioii,'  we  have  only  to  say,  And  that  is  not  sanctification. 
Is  power  to  resist  temptation  and  repress  disordered  affections  all 
that  grace  does  for  us?  Then  every  unconverted  man  is  sanctified, 
for  he  has  natural  power  '  to  resist  temptation  and  repress  disor- 
dered affections.'  All  codes  of  criminal  laws  are  founded  upon  the 
assumption  that  every  man  has  such  power.  And  repressive  obedi- 
ence to  the  law  of  Christ,  in  the  sense  here  mentioned,  is  possible 
to  the  natural  man.  Grace,  then,  does  nothing  more  for  us  than 
resolution  and  good  habits  can  do.  The  Greek  here,  and  similar 
original  words  elsewhere,  teach  that  grace  penetrates  into  the  text- 
ure of  our  spiritual  being,  and  destroys  '  disordered  '  affections  by, 
as  Dr.  Chalmers  says,  *  the  expulsive  power  of  a  new  affection. '  " ' 

If  the  words  of  Dr.  Whedon  mean  no  more  than  appears  in  this 
MEANING  OF  critlcism,  he  certainly  falls  far  short  of  the  truth  of  sanc- 
■WHEDON.  tification.     But  they  may  fairly  mean  much  more  ;  and 

it  seems  to  us  that  he  really  meant  much  more  in  their  use.  Much 
of  the  same  criticism  might  be  made,  and  even  more  aptly,  upon 
the  state  of  regeneration,  as  usually  maintained.  In  the  doctrine  of 
sanctification,  in  its  truest  Wesleyan  form,  there  is  conceded  to  the 
regenerate  a  power  of  repression  or  subjugation  over  the  remnants 
of  depravity.     No  other  position  is  more  fully  maintained  by  Mr. 

'  Holiness  as  Understood  by  the  Writers  of  the  Bible,  p.  69. 

'  Commentary,  Rev.  vii,  14.  '  Possibilities  of  Grace,  p.  55. 


SANCTIFICATION.  365 

Wesley  himself.  But  surely  this  does  not  level  the  regenerate  state 
to  that  of  the  unregeuerate.  In  the  one  there  is  spiritual  life  ;  in 
the  other,  spiritual  death.  Further,  the  repression  or  subjugation 
may  be  so  thorough  in  sauctificatiou  that  the  disorderly  affections 
shall  become  orderly,  or  passively  yield  to  the  dominance  of  the 
higher  spiritual  life.  The  theory  of  repression  certainly  does  not 
mean  the  freedom  and  full  vigor  of  evil  forces  which  formula  ok 
constantly  war  against  the  soul.  The  notable  formula  ciialmers. 
of  Dr.  Chalmers,  ''the  expulsive  power  of  anew  affection,"  is  en- 1 
tirely  consistent  with  the  theory  of  repression;  indeed,  more  consist- 
ent than  with  that  of  eradication.  The  new  affection  is  not  fromj 
the  creation  of  a  new  power,  but  from  the  development  of  a  capacity 
all  the  while  latent  in  the  mind  ;  so  the  expulsion  of  a  prior  affec- 
tion is  not  an  eradication  of  the  power  which  it  manifests,  but  a 
suppression  of  its  activity.  "  There  is  no  fear  in  love  ;  but  perfect 
love  casteth  out  fear."'  Here  is  the  same  principle.  But  how 
does  love  cast  out  fear  ?  Certainly  not  by  an  eradication  of  the 
capacity  of  fear,  but  by  a  suppression  of  its  activity.  This  is  the 
only  mode  in  which  love  can  cast  out  fear,  or  one  affec-  capacities 
tion  expel  another.  Every  possible  affection  must  have  remain. 
its  capacity  in  our  nature.  Hence,  if  in  sanctification  there  is  not 
only  a  suppression  of  all  disordered  affections,  but  also  an  eradica- 
tion of  all  capacity  for  them,  there  can  be  no  possible  lapse  from  that 
state.  But  nothing  could  be  more  contrary  than  this  result  to  the 
truly  Wesleyan  doctrine  of  sanctification.  In  a  discussion  of  his 
own  proposition,  "  sanctification  is  not  the  destruction  of  the  pas- 
sions," Dr.  Lowrey  seems  to  us  in  full  accord  with  the  view  of 
repression,  and  against  that  of  eradication.* 

The  reality  of  sanctification  concerns  us  far  more  deeply  than 
any  question  respecting  the  mode  of  the  work  within  th^  ^.^ij^y 
the  soul.  Sanctification,  whether  in  part  or  in  whole,  question. 
is  in  the  measure  of  the  incoming  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
is  entire  when  through  his  presence  and  power  the  evil  tendencies 
are  subdued  and  the  dominance  of  the  spiritual  life  is  complete. 
We  know  nothing  more  of  the  mode  of  this  inner  work 

O  .  MODE  OF  THE 

than  we  know  of  the  mode  of  the  Spirit  in  the  work  of      work    un-     , 
regeneration.     It  may  be  in  a  more  thorough  subjuga-      i^^owx. 
tion  of  the  sensuous  and  secular  tendencies,  or  in  a  higher  purifi- 
cation and  invigoration  of  the  moral  and  religious  powers,  or  in  a 
fuller  presence  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  in  all ;  but  whether  \  j 
in  one  or  another,  or  in  all,  the  sanctification  is  entire  when  the  n  V^ 
epiritual  life  attains  complete  dominance.     There  is  the  same  need  p 
•  1  John  iv,  18.  »  Possibilities  of  Grace,  pp.  219,  230. 


366  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  this  special  work  in  any  incompleteness,  whether  from  a  lack  of 
fullness  in  regeneration,  or  from  deterioration  after  regeneration,  or 
after  entire  sanctification. 

3.  Concerning  Sin  in  the  Regenerate. — The  truth  of  a  remnant 
of  depravity  in  the  regenerate  is  not  the  truth  of  all  the  teaching 
respecting  it.  That  remnant  must  not  be  exaggerated  in  the  interest 
of  the  doctrine  of  sanctification,  nor  to  the  detriment  of  the  truth 
of  regeneration.  The  latter  point  needs  to  be  guarded  as  vitally 
important. 

That  this  doctrine  is  exaggerated  in  some  of  its  confessional  state- 
coNFEssioxAL  msnts  WO  have  no  question.  We  may  give  two  in- 
srATEMENTs.  stauccs.  lu  thc  articles  of  the  Anglican  Church,  after  a 
very  strong  characterization  of  inherited  depravity,  the  doctrinal 
statement  proceeds  thus  :  "  And  this  infection  of  nature  doth  re- 
main, yea  in  them  that  are  regenerated ;  whereby  the  lust  of  the 
flesh,  called  in  Greek  (ppovrjfia  oapKog,  ...  is  not  subject  to  the  law 
of  God.  And  although  there  is  no  condemnation  for  them  that 
believe  and  are  baptized  ;  yet  the  apostle  doth  confess,  that  concu- 
piscence and  lust  hath  of  itself  the  nature  of  sin."  '  In  the  West- 
minster Confession,  after  an  equally  strong  characterization  of 
native  depravity,  these  words  follow  :  "  This  corruption  of  nature, 
during  this  life,  doth  remain  in  them  that  are  regenerated ;  and 
although  it  be  through  Christ  pardoned  and  mortified,  yet  both  it- 
self, and  all  the  motions  thereof,  are  truly  and  properly  sin.""^ 

These  we  call  mistaken  views  of  regeneration  ;  exaggerations  of 
BEYOND  THE  ^^^  dcpravlty  in  the  regenerate.  Such  is  not  the  sinful 
TRUTH.  state  of  a  soul  newly  born  of  God  into  a  gracious  son- 

ship.  How  shall  we  account  for  such  exaggerations  ?  Partly  from 
the  history  of  the  doctrine.  The  doctrine  itself  was  not  original 
with  either  the  Anglican  Convocation  or  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly, but  was  with  each  an  inheritance  from  an  early  Christian  age. 
The  material  fact  is  the  close  historical  connection  of  the  doctrine 
with  that  of  baptismal  regeneration.  This  connection  may  easily 
account  for  the  very  low  view  of  regeneration.  But  the  view  is 
false  to  the  truth  of  that  great  and  gracious  work  ;  false  to  the 
Scriptures  respecting  it ;  false  to  the  consciousness  of  the  truly 
regenerate. 

The  superficiality  of  regeneration  is  no  implication  of  its  incom- 
DEEPwoRKOF  pletcncss.  Nor  should  it  be  undervalued,  as  it  some- 
REGENERA-  tlmcs  Is,  through  an  unwise  zeal  for  the  doctrine  of 
"^'''  sanctification.     The  less  the  work  of  regeneration,  the 

greater  the  work  of  sanctification;  so  the  former  is  sometimes  held 
'  Article  ix.  ^  Chap,  vi,  v. 


SANCTIFICATION.  367 

to  be  a  very  imperfect  work,  tliat  the  greater  prominence  may  be 
given  to  the  latter.  But  it  is  unwise,  and  a  perversion  of  vital 
truth,  to  lower  one  fact  in  the  work  of  salvation  in  order  to  exalt 
another.  Regeneration  is  not  a  superficial  work ;  nor  is  it,  nor  can 
it  be,  a  small  thing  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit. 

Further,  there  is  a  mistaken  use  of  certain  instances  of  defective 
Christian  life,  particularly  in  the  churches  of  Corinth,  j„g^^^^.jj  ^gj. 
Galatia,  and  Asia,  which  leads  to  a  false  view  of  regen-  of  defective 
eration.  The  mistake  arises  in  the  treatment  of  such  ''"^stances. 
instances  just  as  though  they  represented  a  true  and  normal  regen- 
erate life,  whereas  the  Scriptures  treat  them  as  instances  of  very 
serious  degeneration.  This  must  be  plain  to  any  one  who  will  study 
even  a  part  of  the  appropriate  texts.'  Hence  they  cannot  fairly 
represent  the  true  regenerate  life.  If  the  aim  was  to  prove  that 
there  may  be  serious  degeneration  without  an  utter  forfeiture  of 
the  regenerate  state,  these  instances  would  be  in  point;  but  they 
cannot  be  in  point  for  the  proof  of  the  traditional  doctrine  of  sin 
in  the  regenerate,  because  in  such  use  it  must  be  assumed  that  they 
fairly  represent  the  normal  regenerate  life ;  and  such  an  assumption 
is  openly  contrary  to  the  Scriptures. 

We  cannot  think  Mr.   Wesley's   notable   sermon   "  On    Sin  in 
Believers  "  entirely  clear  of  this  error. ^     It  is  the  tra- 

.  .  .  .  WESLEY   OX 

ditional  doctrine  which  he  therein  maintains,  and  sin  in  be- 
which  he  largely  supports  with  such  instances  of  lievers. 
degenerate  Christian  life  as  we  before  noted.  There  is  in  his 
discussion  no  dissent  from  that  doctrine  respecting  the  low 
state  of  the  regenerate  life  which  it  assumes;  no  discrimination 
between  the  true  regenerate  life  and  that  defective  form  of  it 
represented  by  these  instances  of  serious  degeneration.  Such  is 
the  doctrine  which  Mr.  Wesley  maintains  in  that  ser-  the  tradi- 
mon,  and  which  he  declares  to  have  been  the  doctrine     tional  doc- 

TRIN£ 

of  the  Church  from  the  beginning.  So  broadly  and  in- 
variably has  it  been  held,  that  it  must  be  viewed  as  truly  catholic. 
The  opposing  doctrine  of  entire  sanctification  in  regeneration  was 
new  with  Zinzendorf,  and  wholly  unknown  before  him.  In  em- 
phasizing such  facts  Mr.  Wesley  further  shows  that  it  is  the  tradi- 
tional doctrine  of  sin  in  the  regenerate,  even  in  its  fullest  strength, 
which  he  maintains  in  that  notable  sermon.  Mr.  Wesley  was  doc- 
trinally  educated  in  the  Anglican  articles,  and  in  the  ninth,  which 
formulates  this  doctrine,  just  as  he  was  in  the  others;  and,  while 
he  came  to  far  deeper  and  clearer  views  of  the  regenerate  life  than 

'  1  Cor.  iii,  1-4;  Gal.  i,  6;  iii,  1-3;  v,  7;  Eev.  ii,  2-6,  13,  16;  iii,  2,  3. 
^  Sermons,  xiii. 


368  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

this  article  allows,  yet  is  it  the  doctrinal  basis  of  his  sermon  "  On 
Sin  in  Believers." 

We  make  no  issue  with  Mr.  Wesley  in  his  sharp  criticism  of  Zin- 
zeudorf  respecting  this  new  doctrine ;  though  we  would 
OF  ziNZEN-       as  soon  believe  and  teach  that  regeneration  is  entire 
^^^^'  sanctification  as  to  believe  and  teach  that  it  is  intrin- 

sically a  low  spiritual  state,  a  life  half  carnal,  and  that,  simply  as 
such,  it  never  can  be  any  better.  We  should  be  nearer  the  truly 
Wesleyan  doctrine  of  regeneration  in  the  former  case  than  in  the 
latter.  The  doctrine  of  Zinzendorf  could  easily  be  so  perverted  as 
to  become  a  serious  detriment  to  the  spiritual  life ;  but  it  should 
not  be  overlooked  that  his  soteriology  was  strongly  tinctured  with 
antinomianism,  and  that  this  fact  may  account  for  much  of  the 
actual  evil. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  views  of  the  regenerate  life  as  shall 
answer  to  the  traditional  doctrine  of  sin  in  believers 
TRADITIONAL  must  bc  most  harmful.  According  to  that  doctrine 
DOCTRINE.  there  is  unavoidably  much  sin  in  the  regenerate  life; 
and  yet  that  such  sin  is  not  sin  ;  that  is,  that  it  is  not  counted  to 
the  regenerate  as  sin.  There  is  in  such  a  doctrine  no  urgent  call 
to  an  earnest,  consecrated  Christian  life;  no  inspiration  of  hope 
for  its  attainment.  Such  views  of  the  regenerate  life  are  neither 
truly  scriptural  nor  truly  Wesleyan.  Hence  we  must  think  that 
Mr.  Wesley's  sermon  "  On  Sin  in  Believers  "  is  not  true  either  to 
the  real  truth  of  regeneration  or  to  his  own  truthful  views  of  that 
great  and  gracious  work.  All  this  must  be  plain  to  any  one  who 
will  fairly  compare  that  sermon  with  his  sermon  on  ''  The  Marks 
of  the  New  Birth.'"  Indeed,  his  Plaiii  Account  of  Christian 
Perfection  is  pervaded  with  views  of  regeneration  in  full  accord 
with  the  latter  sermon,  but  which  are  strongly  out  of  accord  with 
the  special  doctrine  maintained  in  the  former.  The  true  regenerate 
life  is  not  in  the  low  plane  of  the  traditional  doctrine. 

4.  Tlie  Second- Blessing  View. — The  doctrinal  view  of  the  second 
blessing,  as  definitely  held,  consists  of  two  parts,  one  of  which  has 
already  been  stated,  but  which  may  here  be  restated  in  connection 
with  the  other.  The  doctrine  will  thus  be  presented  the  more 
clearly. 

Underlying  the  definite  second-blessing  view  is  the  doctrine  of  a 
UNDERLYING  commou  iucompletcness  of  the  work  of  regeneration. 
DOCTRINE.  Herein  the  soul  is  renewed,  but  not  wholly ;  purified, 
but  not  thoroughly.  Somewhat  of  depravity  remains  which  wars 
against  the  new  spiritual  life ;  not  strong  enough  to  bring  that  life 

'  Sermons,  xviii. 


SANCTIFICATION.  3G9 

into  bondage  to  itself,  yet  strong  enough  to  impose  a  burden  upon 
the  work  of  its  maintenance.  Such  is  the  first  part.  The  doctrine 
in  the  secoud  part  is  that  the  regenerate  shall  come  to  the  nkw  ex- 
the  consciousness  of  this  incompleteness,  and  to  a  deep  periknce. 
sense  of  the  need  of  a  fullness  of  the  spiritual  life;  that  these  expe- 
riences shall  be  analogous  to  those  which  preceded  the  attainment 
of  regeneration,  and  be  just  as  deep  and  thorough.  The  fullness  of 
sanctification  shall  be  instantly  attained  on  the  condition  of  faith, 
just  as  justification  is  attained;  and  there  shall  be  anew  experience 
of  a  great  and  gracious  change,  and  just  as  consciously  such  as  the 
experience  in  regeneration. 

That  Mr.  Wesley  held  and  taught  such  views  there  can  be  no 
doubt;  though  we  think  it  would  be  a  wrong  to  him  to  the  view  op 
say  that  he  allowed  no  instances  of  entire  sanctification  weslet. 
except  in  this  definite  mode.  We  see  no  perplexity  for  faith  in 
the  possibility  of  such  an  instant  subjective  purification.  Through 
the  divine  agency  the  soul  may  be  as  quickly  cleansed  as  the  leper, 
as  quickly  purified  in  whole  as  in  part.  We  admit  an  instant  par- 
tial sanctification  in  regeneration,  and  therefore  may  admit  the 
possibility  of  an  instant  entire  sanctification. 

Such  a  view  of  sanctification  does  not  mean  that  there  need  be 
no  preparation  for  its  attainment.  The  necessity  of  process  of 
such  a  preparation  is  uniformly  held,  even  by  such  as  preparation. 
hold  strongly  the  second-blessing  view.  The  idea  of  such  a  prepa- 
ration is  inseparable  from  the  process  of  experience  through  which, 
according  to  this  view,  the  regenerate  must  pass  in  order  to  the 
attainment  of  entire  sanctification.' 

However,  this  process  of  preparation  need  not  be  chronologically 
long.  No  assumption  of  such  a  necessity  could  be  true  ^eed  not  be  a 
to  the  soteriology  of  the  Scriptures.  Let  it  be  recalled  long  one. 
that .  the  question  here  is,  not  the  maturity  of  the  Christian  life, 
but  the  purification  of  the  nature.  For  the  attainment  of  the  for- 
mer there  must  be  growth,  and  growth  requires  time.  But,  while 
the  subjective  purification  may  be  progressively  wrought,  it  is  not 
subject  to  the  law  of  growth;  and  it  is  eo  thoroughly  and  solely  the 
work  of  God  that  it  may  be  quickly  wrought.  Neither  is  there  any 
necessity  that  the  mental  process  of  preparation  shall  be  chrono- 
logically a  long  one.  Here,  as  in  many  other  spheres,  the  mental 
movement  may  be  very  rapid.  It  is  often  so  in  conversion.  In 
many  instances  the  whole  mental  process  has  been  crowded  into  an 
hour,  or  even  less  time.     Even  heathen  have  been  saved,  born  of 

'  Peck :  The  Central  Idea  of  Christianity,  chap,  v ;  Lowrey :  Possibilities  of 
Grace,  pp.  137-158,  287-330. 


370  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  Spirit  through  faith  in  Christ,  under  the  first  sermon  they 
ever  heard.  But  there  is  as  really  a  necessary  process  of  prepara- 
tion for  regeneration  as  for  entire  sanctification ;  and  such  prep- 
aration need  require  no  more  time  in  the  latter  case  than  in  the 
former. 

That  a  subjective  purification  may  be  attained  according  to  the 
NOT  ONLY  IN  dcfiuitc  sccond-blessing  view  does  not  limit  the  possibil- 
THis  MODE.  ity  to  this  single  mode.  There  is  no  ground  in  Script- 
ure for  such  a  limitation.  Indeed,  the  attainableness  of  sanctifi- 
cation according  to  this  definitely  wrought  doctrine,  as  above  stated, 
is  a  truth  which  lies  in  the  soteriology  of  the  Scriptures  as  a 
whole,  and  not  in  any  definite  teaching  on  the  question.  While 
they  are  full  of  the  idea  of  entire  sanctification,  they  are  quite 
empty  of  any  such  teaching  respecting  the  mode  of  its  attainment. 
Hence  any  insistence  upon  such  a  mode  as  the  only  possible  mode 
of  sanctification  must  be  without  definite  warrant  of  Scripture. 
Further,  we  think  it  a  serious  objection  to  this  view,  as  thus  rig- 
idly held,  that  it  cannot  consistently  allow  any  preaching  of  holi- 
ness, or  any  seeking  after  it,  or  any  expectation  of  its  attainment, 
except  in  this  definite  mode. 

Mr.  Wesley  held  strongly  the  view  of  an  instant  subjective  sanc- 
A  GRADUAL  tlficatiou  ;  and  we  fully  agree  with  him,  not  only  in  its 
WORK.  possibility,  but  also  in  its  frequent  actuality  ;  but  his 

own  illustration  of  his  doctrine  points  to  a  possible  attainment  in  a 
gradual  mode.  It  is  given  in  his  answer  to  the  question:  "  Is  this 
death  to  sin,  and  renewal  in  love,  gradual  or  instantaneous  ?  "  His 
answer  is:  '^  A  man  may  be  dying  for  some  time,  yet  he  does  not, 
properly  speaking,  die  till  the  instant  the  soul  is  separated  from  the 
body,  and  in  that  instant  he  lives  the  life  of  eternity.  In  like  man- 
ner, he  may  be  dying  to  sin  for  some  time ;  yet  he  is  not  dead  to  sin 
till  sin  is  separated  from  the  soul ;  and  in  that  instant  he  lives  the 
full  life  of  love. " '  The  instant  consummation  here  emphasized  does 
not  exclude  the  gradual  approach  to  it ;  so  that,  according  to  this 
illustration,  there  may  be  a  gradual  dying  unto  sin  until  the  death 
is  complete  ;  a  gradual  subjective  purification  until  completeness  is 
attained.  Such  a  view  is  in  the  fullest  accord  with  the  soteriology 
of  the  Scriptures. 

The  privilege  of  entire  sanctification  is  at  once  so  thoroughly 
POINT  OF  HEsi-  Scriptural  and  Wesleyan  that  from  it  there  is  among 
TATioN.  VIS  only  the  rarest  dissent.     Yet  not  a  few  hesitate  re- 

specting the  sharply  defined  second-blessing  view.  We  do  not  share 
this  hesitation,  so  far  as  that  view  represents  a  possible  mode  of 

'  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection,  p.  80. 


SANCTIFICATION.  371 

entire  sanctification;  though  we  object  to  any  insistence  that  such  is 
the  only  possible  mode.  Right  here  is  the  occasion  of  occasion  of 
unfortunate  differences  among  us.  However,  much  of  mffKRExcEs. 
the  evil  consequence  might  easily  be  avoided;  much  of  it  would  be 
avoided  through  a  spirit  of  mutual  forbearance.  Let  those  who 
hold  rigidly  the  second-blessing  view  preach  sanctification  in  their 
own  way,  but  let  them  be  tolerant  of  such  as  preach  it  in  a  manner 
somewhat  different;  and  let  such  as  hesitate  respecting  that  special 
view  be  tolerant  of  those  for  whom  it  possesses  great  interest.  All 
ministers  who  believe  in  the  privilege  of  a  full  salvation  can  preach 
it  in  good  faith.  Indeed,  they  are  not  at  liberty  to  omit  this 
})reaching. 

Who  shall  say  that  the  only  permissible  or  profitable  preaching 
of  sanctification  is  that  which  prescribes  an  exact  mode  the  rkal 
of  its  attainment?  The  doctrine  itself,  and  not  any  interest. 
rigid  form  into  which  we  may  cast  it,  is  the  real  interest;  the  priv- 
ilege itself,  the  great  privilege;  the  actual  attainment,  the  highest 
aim.  And  if  with  one  consent,  even  if  without  regard  to  definite 
modes,  we  should  earnestly  preach  a  full  salvation ;  preach  it  as  a 
common  privilege  and  duty  ;  preach  it  as  the  true  aim  of  every 
Christian  life,  surely  there  would  be  large  gain  in  a  wider  spiritual 
edification,  while  many  would  enter  into  **  the  fullness  of  the 
blessing  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ."  ' 

III.  The  Life  ix  Holiness. 
In  the  earlier  part  of  this  discussion  we  pointed  out  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  two  questions  respecting  the  sanctifica- 

1  I  &  TREATMENT  BV 

tion  of  the  nature  and  the  holiness  of  the  life.  Having  leading  au- 
sufficiently  treated  the  former,  Ave  now  take  up  the  lat-  ''"^^'*^- 
ter.  This  question  we  desire,  first  of  all,  to  present  in  the  words  of 
some  of  its  leading  expositors.  However,  there  is  one  difficulty  in 
such  presentation;  it  arises  from  a  lack  of  proper  discrimination  be- 
tween the  two  spheres  of  sanctification  which  we  before  pointed  out. 
Mostly,  the  subject  is  treated  simply  as  one,  and  without  any  real 
distinction,  certainly  Avithout  any  formal  distinction,  between  the 
sanctification  of  the  nature  and  the  holiness  of  the  life.  This  is 
specially  true  of  Mr.  Wesley's  treatment.  While  both  questions  ap- 
pear in  his  discussions,  yet  it  is  without,  any  such  distinction  of  the 
two  as  we  think  necessary  to  the  clearer  treatment  of  the  subject. 
Such  is  the  case  in  the  passages  which  we  shall  directly  cite  from 
him;  yet,  with  proper  discrimination  on  our  own  part,  the  fact  need 
not  obscure  his  portraiture  of  the  life  in  Christian  holiness. 

'  Rom.  XV,  29. 


372  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

1.  Portraiture  of  the  Life. — We  first  present  this  portraiture  as 
drawn  by  Mr,  Wesley  himself.  In  the  first  citation  we  ob- 
serve the  order  of  question  and  answer  in  which  he  wrote. 

*' Q.  What  is  Christian  perfection? 

'^  A.  The  loving  God  with  all  our  heart,  mind,  soul,  and  strength. 
DEFINITIVE  This  implies  that  no  wrong  temper,  none  contrary  to 
STATEMENT.  lovc,  rcmaius  in  the  soul ;  and  that  all  the  thoughts, 
words,  and  actions  are  governed  by  pure  love. 

"  Q.  Do  you  affirm  that  this  perfection  excludes  all  infirmities, 
ignorance,  and  mistake? 

''A.  I  continually  affirm  quite  the  contrary,  and  always  have 
done  so. 

"  Q.  But  how  can  every  thought,  word,  and  work  be  governed 
by  pure  love,. and  the  man  be  subject  at  the  same  time  to  igno- 
rance and  mistake? 

''A.  I  see  no  contradiction  here :  '  A  man  may  be  filled  with  pure 
coNsisTENCT  lovc,  aud  stlll  be  liable  to  mistake.'  Indeed,  I  do  not 
OF  FACTS.  expect  to  be  freed  from  actual  mistakes  till  this  mortal 
puts  on  immortality.  ... 

'^But  we  may  carry  this  thought  farther  yet.  A  mistake  in 
FURTHER  EX-  judgmcut  may  possibly  occasion  a-  mistake  in  practice. 
PLANATioN.  ]por  instance:  Mr.  De  Renty's  mistake  touching  the 
nature  of  mortification,  arising  from  jirejudice  of  education,  occa- 
sioned that  practical  mistake,  his  wearing  an  iron  girdle.  And  a 
thousand  such  instances  there  may  be,  even  in  those  who  are  in  the 
highest  state  of  grace.  Yet  where  every  word  and  action  springs 
from  love,  such  a  mistake  is  not  properly  a  sin.  However,  it  cannot 
bear  the  rigor  of  God's  justice,  but  needs  the  atoning  blood. 

"  Q.  What  was  the  judgment  of  all  our  brethren  who  met  at 
Bristol,  in  August,  1758,  on  this  head? 

"A.  It  was  expressed  in  these  words:  1.  Evej-y  man  may  mis- 
MisTAKEs  IN  ^akc  as  long  as  he  lives.  2.  A  mistake  in  opinion  may 
PRACTICE.  occasion  a  mistake  in  practice.  3.  Every  such  mistake 
is  a  transgression  of  the  perfect  law.  Therefore,  4.  Every  such 
mistake,  were  it  not  for  the  blood  of  atonement,  would  expose  to 
eternal  damnation.  5.  It  follows  that  the  most  perfect  have  con- 
tinual need  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  even  for  their  actual  transgres- 
sions, and  may  say  for  themselves,  as  well  as  for  their  brethren, 
'  Forgive  us  our  trespasses.' 

"  This  easily  accounts  for  what  might  otherwise  seem  to  be  utterly 
MISTAKES  NOT  unaccountablc,  namely,  that  those  who  are  not  offended 
^''*-  when  we  speak  of  the  highest  degree  of  love,  yet  will 

not  hear  of  living  without  sin.     The  reason  is,  they  know  all  men 


SANCTIFICATION.  373 

are  liable  to  mistake,  and  that  in  practice  as  well  as  in  judgment. 
But  they  do  not  know,  or  do  not  observe,  that  this  is  not  sin,  if  love 
is  the  sole  principle  of  action. 

"  Q.  But  still,  if  they  live  without  sin,  does  not  this  exclude  the 
necessity  of  a  Mediator?  At  least,  is  it  not  plain  that  they  stand 
no  longer  in  need  of  Christ  in  his  priestly  office? 

"A.  Far  from  it.  None  feel  their  need  of  Christ  like  these; 
none  so  entirely  depend  upon  him.  For  Christ  does  not  ever  a  need 
give  life  to  the  soul  separate  from,  but  in  and  with  ofchrist. 
himself.  Hence  his  words  are  equally  true  of  all  men,  in  whatso-  1/ 
ever  state  of  grace  they  are :  '  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of 
itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine ;  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide 
in  me:  without  (or  separate  from)  me  ye  can  do  nothing.' 

"  In   every  state   we   need   Christ    in   the   following  respects : 

1.  Whatever  grace  we  receive  it  is  a  free  gift  from  him.     ^j^ly  source 

2.  We  receive  it  as  his  purchase,  merely  in  considera-  of  grace. 
tion  of  the  price  he  paid.  3.  We  have  this  grace,  not  only  from 
Christ,  but  in  him.  For  our  perfection  is  not  like  that  of  a  tree, 
which  flourishes  by  the  sap  derived  from  its  own  root,  but,  as  was 
said  before,  like  that  of  a  branch  which,  united  to  the  vine,  bears 
fruit;  but,  severed  from  it,  is  dried  up  and  withered.  4.  All  our 
blessings,  temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal,  depend  on  his  interces- 
sion for  us,  which  is  one  branch  of  his  priestly  office,  whereof 
therefore  we  have  always  equal  need.  S.^-'The  best  of  the  best  need 
men  still  need  Christ  in  his  priestly  office  to  atone  for  christ. 
their  omissions,  their  shortcomings  (as  some  not  improperly  speak), 
their  mistakes  in  judgment  and  practice,  and  their  defects  of  va- 
rious kinds ;  for  these  are  all  deviations  from  the  perfect  law,  and 
consequently  need  an  atonement.  Yet  that  they  are  not  properly 
sins  we  apprehend  may  appear  from  the  words  of  St.  Paul :  '^  He 
that  loveth  hath  fulfilled  the  law;  for  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the 
law."  Now,  mistakes,  and  whatever  infirmities  necessarily  flow 
from  the  corruptible  state  of  the  bod}^,  are  no  way  contrary  to  love ; 
nor,  therefore,  in  the  Scripture  sense,  sin. 

''  To  explain  myself  a  little  further  on  this  head :  1.  Not  only 

sin,  properly  so  called   (that  is,  a  voluntary  transgression   of  a 

known  law),  but  sin,  improperly  so  called  (that  is,  an  involuntary 

transgression  of  a  divine  law,  known  or  unknown),      respecting 

needs  the  atoning  blood.     2.  I  believe  there  is  no  such     sinless  per- 

perfection   in  this  life  as  excludes  those  involuntary 

transgressions,  which  I  apprehend  to  be  naturally  consequent  on 

the  ignorance  and  mistakes  inseparable  from  mortality.     3.  There- 

'  Rom.  xiii,  10. 
26  ' 


374  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

fore  sinless  perfection  is  a  phrase  I  never  use,  lest  I  should  seem  to 
contradict  myself.  4.  I  believe  a  person  filled  with  the  love  of  God 
is  still  liable  to  these  involuntary  transgressions.  5.  Such  trans- 
gressions you  may  call  sin,  if  you  please :  I  do  not,  for  the  reasons 
above  mentioned."' 

Such  is  the  Christian  perfection  which  Mr.  Wesley  maintained. 
MODERATION  ^urcly  hc  cannot  be  fairly  accused  of  extravagance. 
OF  THE  DOC-  His  doctrine  means  no  absolute  perfection ;  no  such 
TRiNL.  perfection  as  might  be  possible  in  a  purely  spiritual 

being;  no  such  perfection  even  as  might  have  been  possible  to  un- 
fallen  man.  Many  forms  of  infirmity  are  clearly  recognized  as 
inseparable  from  our  present  life,  whatever  our  spiritual  attainment. 
Indeed,  with  his  own  qualifications,  the  moderation  of  his  doctrine 
is  all  that  the  Scriptures  will  allow.  In  another  view,  his  doctrine 
GUARDED  ^®  carefully  guarded  against  harmful  perversions,  the 

AGAixxsTPER-  possiblUty  of  which  he  clearly  foresaw.  No  possible 
VERSION.  attainment  in  grace  can  for  a  moment  free  us  from  the 

need  of  Christ,  or  lift  us  above  the  propriety  of  praying,  "  For- 
give us  our  trespasses. "  Finally,  love  is  emphasized  as  the  central 
reality  of  Christian  perfection.  This  is  a  view  which  Mr.  Wesley 
has  often  presented,  and  not  without  the  fullest  warrant  of  Script- 
ure. It  is  not  meant,  either  in  the  Scriptures  or  in  his  doctrine, 
that  love  is  the  only  Christian  duty,  but,  rather,  that  with  the  su- 
premacy of  love  the  whole  life  must  be  in  harmony  with  the  will  of 
God.     It  is  in  this  sense  that  "  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law."  ' 

In  1767  Mr.  Wesley  wrote  thus :  ''  Some  thoughts  occurred  to  my 
mind  this  morning  concerning  Christian  perfection,  and  the  manner 
and  time  of  receiving  it,  which  I  believe  may  be  useful  to  set  down. 

"  1.  By  perfection  I  mean  the  humble,  gentle,  patient  love  of 
God  and  our  neighbor,  ruling  our  tempers,  words,  and 

PERFECTION.  ,  .  °  ° 

actions.  .  .  . 

"  2.  As  to  the  manner.  I  believe  this  perfection  is  always  wrought 
SIMPLY  BY  in  the  soul  by  a  simple  act  of  faith;  consequently  in  an 
FAITH.  instant.     But  I  believe  a  gradual  work,  both  preceding 

and  following  that  instant. 

"3.  As  to  the  time.  I  believe  this  instant  generally  is  the  in- 
TiME  OF  AT-  stant  of  death,  the  moment  before  the  soul  leaves  the 
TAiNMENT.  body.  But  I  believe  it  may  be  ten,  twenty,  or  forty 
years  before.  I  believe  it  is  usually  many  years  after  justification ; 
but  that  it  may  be  within  five  years  or  five  months  after  it,  I  know 
no  conclusive  argument  to  the  contrary."  ' 

'  Wesley :  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection,  pp.  62-67. 
'  Rom.  xiii,  10.  ^  Works,  vol.  vi,  pp.  531,  582. 


SATTCTTFICATION".  375 

On  this  great  question  we  place  Mr.  Fletcher  next  to  Mr.  Wesley. 
In  two  brief  paragraphs,  properly  regarded  as  classical, 
he  gives  us  a  picture  of  Christian  perfection,  or  of  the        Fletcher. 
life  in  holiness : 

*'  We  call  Christian  perfection  the  maturity  of  grace  and  holi- 
ness, which  established,  adult  believers  attain  to  under  analytic 
the  Christian  dispensation;  and  by  this  means  we  dis-  '^i^^^'- 
tinguish  that  maturity  of  grace,  both  from  the  rijieness  of  grace 
which  belongs  to  the  dispensation  of  the  Jews  below  us,  and  from 
the  ripeness  of  glory  Avhicli  belongs  to  departed  saints  above  us. 
Hence  it  appears  that,  by  Christian  perfection,  we  mean  nothing 
but  the  cluster  and  maturity  of  the  graces  which  compose  the 
Christian  character  in  the  Church  militant. 

"  In  other  words.  Christian  perfection  is  a  spiritual  constellation 
made  up  of  these  gracious  stars:  perfect  repentance,  perfectiomop 
perfect  faith,  perfect  humility,  perfect  meekness,  per-  graces. 
feet  self-denial,  perfect  resignation,  perfect  hope,  perfect  charity 
for  our  visible  enemies,  as  well  as  for  our  earthly  relations;  and, 
above  all,  perfect  love  for  our  invisible  God,  through  the  exj)licit 
knowledge  of  our  Mediator  Jesus  Christ.  And  as  this  last  star  is 
always  accompanied  by  all  the  others,  as  Jupiter  is  by  his  satellites, 
we  frequently  use,  as  St.  John,  the  phrase  '  perfect  love,'  instead 
of  the  word  '  perfection; '  understanding  by  it  the  pure  love  of  God, 
shed  abroad  in  the  heart  of  established  believers  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  is  abundantly  given  them  under  the  fullness  of  the  Christian 
dispensation." ' 

The  life  in  Christian  holiness,  as  here  portrayed,  is  the  same  as 
in  the  citations  from  Mr.  Wesley.  The  only  observable  difference 
is  in  respect  to  the  element  of  time  in  the  attainment  of  the  element 
perfection  or  maturity.  While  Mr.  Fletcher  does  not  ^f  time. 
formally  treat  this  question,  yet  in  the  use  of  the  phrase  "  estab- 
lished, adult  believers,"  in  the  characterization  of  such  as  attain 
perfection,  there  is  a  clear  recognition  of  the  element  of  time  in 
that  attainment.  This  we  think  the  true  view.  While  there  may 
be  an  instant  subjective  purification,  only  with  time  can  there  be 
a  perfection  or  maturity  of  the  Christian  graces.  '"  Mr.  Fletcher 
is  also  very  careful  to  introduce  the  word  '  established  '  comment  op 
before  believer,  and  in  one  place  inserts  the  word  merrill. 
'  adult '  as  a  qualifier  in  the  same  connection.  This  is  intended  to 
guard  against  the  notion  that  inexperienced,  impulsive  Christian 
faith,  however  vigorous  for  the  time,  is  caj)able  of  producing  at 
once  the  ripened  fruit  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  not  the  warmth  of  the 
'  Christian  Perfection,  pp.  9,  10, 


3 76  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

hearty  but  its  steadiness,  its  depth,  its  breadth  of  love,  and  its 
tested  resistance  to  the  powers  of  evil,  that  distinguishes  the  '  es- 
tablished '  believer ;  as  it  is  through  all  the  experiences  of  impulse 
and  of  emotion  and  of  temptation  incident  to  the  Christian  life 
that  the  settled  and  unmovable  faith  is  acquired,  which  may  be 
truthfully  described  as  matured  and  ripened.  Christian  perfection 
is,  therefore,  not  a  childhood  attainment.  It  belongs  to  those  who 
have  grown  upon  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word  till  they  are  able  to 
digest  the  strong  meat  of  the  Gospel,  and  whose  spiritual  senses 
are  exercised  to  discern  good  and  evil.  It  belongs  to  adult  believ- 
ers, to  those  who  have  become  '  rooted  and  built  up  in  him,  and 
established  in  the  faith,  abounding  therein  with  thanksgiving.'  "  ' 

We  add  another  passage,  one  with  little  detail,  but  intensely 
forceful  in  the  presentation  of  the  central  realities  of  a  life  in  Chris- 
MEANiNG  OF  tlau  holincss :  "  By  holiness  I  mean  that  state  of  the 
HOLINESS.  goul  in  which  all  its  alienation  from  Cod  and  all  its 
aversion  to  a  holy  life  are  removed.  In  this  state  sin  is  odious. 
The  more  holy  any  soul,  any  being  is,  the  more  odious  sin  becomes. 
To  a  good  man  sin  is  odious ;  to  a  holy  man  it  is  more  odious ;  to 
an  angel  it  is  far  more  so  still ;  but  to  God  sin  must  be,  to  us, 
inconceivably  odious.  And  therefore  it  is  said  that  the  heavens  are 
not  clean  in  his  sight,  and  that  he  charged  his  angels  with  folly — 
so  insignificant  is  their  holiness  when  contrasted  with  the  holiness 
of  God.  Holiness  admits  of  an  infinite  number  of  degrees;  and 
there  is  set  before  us  an  eternal  progression  in  holiness.  But  that 
degree  of  it,  or  that  state  of  the  soul  in  which  temptations  to  sin 
leave  there  no  damaging  moral  influence,  no  tarnish  of  sin,  no  pain 
in  the  conscience,  no  corruption  of  the  will,  no  obscurity  or  per- 
version of  the  spiritual  vision — that  state  in  which  the  all-efficacious 
blood  of  Jesus  has  washed  away  all  the  stains  of  sin,  and  in  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  constantly  presides,  rules,  and  reigns  without  a 
rival — is  what  we  call  sanctification."  ° 

Further  appropriate  citations  could  do  little  more  than  repeat 
THE  LIFE  IN  what  has  already  been  well  stated,  and  therefore  may  be 
HOLINESS.  omitted.  We  add  a  few  words  in  the  form  of  a  defini- 
tive statement :  With  a  true  and  full  self -consecration  to  God;  with 
a  trustful  resting  of  the  soul  in  Christ ;  with  a  single  purpose  and 
earnest  endeavor  to  do  his  will ;  with  a  gracious  power  through  the 
Spirit  against  evil  and  unto  a  good  life ;  most  of  all,  with  the  su- 
premacy of  love  in  the  soul,  the  life  is  in  Christian  holiness.  Such 
it  may  be  from  the  hour  of  the  subjective  purification,  or  the  thorough 

'  Merrill :  Aspects  of  Christian  Experience,  pp.  235,  236. 
*  McCabe :  Light  on  the  Pathway  of  Holiness,  pp.  68-70. 


SANCTIFICATION.  377 

iuvigoration  of  the  moral   and  religious  powers,  and   while   the 
maturity  of  the  Christian  graces  is   yet  wanting.     If      ^  „_„ 

•^  .  .  HOLINESS  BE- 

holiness  of  life  be  not  possible  prior  to  such  maturity,  kohe  matc- 
then  it  must  be  impossible  through  all  the  time  necessary  ^^^^' 
to  that  attainment.  In  this  case  holiness  of  life  never  can  be 
reached  except  through  a  process  of  growth  ;  and  therefore,  for  a 
greater  or  less  time,  the  life  in  regeneration  must  be  a  sinful  life. 
But  such  is  not  the  Wesleyan  doctrine.  Mr.  AVesley  himself  main- 
tained the  possibility  of  a  holy  life  in  the  regenerate  state,  and  from 
the  hour  of  regeneration.  Surely,  then,  it  must  be  possible  from 
the  hour  of  the  subjective  sanctification. 

2.  Grades  in  Graces. — The  life  in  holiness  does  not  mean  an  ex- 
act equality  in  the  graces  of  all  who  so  live.     Here  the 

element  of  time  must  cause  wide  differences.  As  these 
graces  acquire  strength  through  trial  and  reach  maturity  through  a 
process  of  growth,  so  they  should  be  stronger  and  maturer  in  those 
long  in  the  life  of  holiness  than  in  those  who  have  but  recently  at- 
tained it.  There  are  other  laws  of  difference,  particularly  in  the  mat- 
ter of  capacity  and  temperament.  The  religious  capacity  temperament 
is  no  more  equal  in  all  men  than  the  intellectual  capacity,  ^^d  capacity. 
Such  being  the  case,  there  can  be  no  one  grade  for  all  who  attain 
unto  a  life  in  holiness.  "  The  point  to  be  maintained  is  a  pure 
heart,  an  unsinning  life,  and  a  loving  service  progressively  commen- 
surate with  our  ever-increasing  capacity  and  light.  This  rule  will 
show  a  disparity  among  entirely  sanctified  persons.  Capacity  and 
circumstances  will  make  the  difference.  This  fact  should  caution 
us  not  to  pronounce  all  persons  unsanctified  who  do  not  measure 
up  to  the  highest  standard  in  our  estimation  in  sanctity  of  life  and 
propriety  of  behavior.^' ' 

The  Christian  graces  of  the  same  person  must  differ  in  perfec- 
tion or  strength,  whatever  the  grade  of  his  attainment  none  excel  m 
in  holiness.  One  may  excel  in  one  grace ;  another  in  ^^^  graces. 
another ;  but  none  in  all.  Even  in  sacred  history  different  persons 
are  examples  of  pre-eminence  in  different  graces.  Accordingly,  the 
faith  of  Abraham,  the  patience  of  Job,  the  meekness  of  Moses,  the 
love  of  John,  and  the  heroism  of  Paul  are  familiar  ideas.  Peculiar- 
ities of  temperament  not  only  account  for  such  facts,  but  make 
them  inevitable.  It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things,  nor  according 
to  the  working  of  divine  grace,  that  any  one  should  excel  in  the  en- 
tire circle  of  Christian  graces. 

3.  Law  of  Perfection  in  Graces. — In  an  earlier  part  of  this  dis- 
cussion it  was  shown  that  a  subjective  sanctification  is  the  neces- 

'  Lowrey :  Possibilities  of  Grace,  p.  237. 


378  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

sary  ground  of  the  Christian  graces,  in  all  stages  of  their  develop* 
TIME  AND  EX-  ^leut;  but  it  was  also  pointed  out  that  the  perfection  or 
PERiENCE.  maturity  of  these  graces  is  not  an  instant,  not  even  a 
direct  product  of  such  sanctification.  They  must  have  time  for 
growth ;  must  be  tested  in  the  fields  of  duty  and  trial ;  must  be 
strengthened  and  perfected  through  the  proper  exercise.  In  this 
manner  not  a  few  whose  record  is  in  sacred  history  gained  the 
strength  and  fullness  of  their  religious  character.  Such  character 
could  not  have  been  gained  in  any  other  mode.  A  glance  at  the 
lives  of  the  leading  biblical  characters  will  readily  discover  the  truth 
of  these  statements.  There  are  many  such  instances  in  Christian  his- 
tory. The  men  of  distinction  in  Christian  character  and  service  have 
A  NECESSARY  G^®^  rcached  the  perfection  of  their  graces  through  the 
LAW.  fulfillment  of   trying  duty.     No  endowment  of  grace 

ever  supersedes  this  law  of  perfection.  There  is  a  wisdom,  a 
strength,  a  patience,  a  courage,  a  zeal,  a  self-consecration  in  the 
spirit  of  self-sacrifice  which  can  be  won  only  on  the  field  of  duty  and 
trial.  Take  the  instance  of  St.  Paul :  with  the  same  recipiency  of 
grace,  yet  without  his  many  trying  experiences,  he  never  could  have 
attained  to  such  a  degree  of  perfection  in  so  many  Christian  graces. 
The  law  thus  illustrated  by  so  many  notable  instances  is  applicable 
to  every  Christian  life. 

It  is  not  essential  to  such  a  life,  that  it  shall  be  without  varia- 
TARiATioNs  OF  tlous  of  expericncc ;  that  no  shadow  shall  fall  upon  its 
EXPERIENCE,  sunsliinc,  nor  sense  of  sorrow  mingle  with  its  joy;  that 
there  shall  be  no  moments  of  temptation  or  trial,  hesitation  or 
doubt.  It  is  true  that  uniformity  of  experience  is  to  be  regarded  as 
specially  characteristic  of  the  life  in  holiness ;  but  such  variations 
as  we  have  indicated  are,  as  occasional  facts,  entirely  consistent  with 
the  truest  constancy.  In  all  and  through  all  there  may  be  the 
unmovable  steadfastness  of  faith  and  the  fullness  of  love.  If  it  be 
not  so,  there  is  for  us  no  present  attainment  of  a  full  salvation; 
none,  indeed,  in  the  present  life.  Whatever  the  blessedness  of  this 
state,  it  is  not  the  heavenly  state.  With  the  fullness  of  salvation 
we  are  still  in  the  body  and  in  the  common  relations  of  life.  Many 
infirmities  and  trials  are  inseparable  from  this  bodily  state ;  many 
burdens  and  sorrows,  unavoidable  in  these  relations.  The  imagina- 
tion, especially  when  warmed  by  the  mystical  temper,  may  picture  a 
DELUSIVE  REV-  statc  of  indifferencc  to  outward  things;  a  state  in 
ERiEs.  which  the  soul  is  so  lost  in  God  as  to  be  free  from  all 

anxiety  and  care,  and  even  without  wish  of  ease  from  pain ;  a  state 
in  which  sickness  and  death  are  indifferent  to  the  calm  repose,  and 
even  the  peril  of  souls  awakens  no  solicitude;  but  such  a  reverie  is 


SANCTIFICATION.  379 

far  more  replete  with  hallucination  than  with  the  truth  and  reality 
of  sanctification.     Certainly  it  is  neither  Paul-like  nor  Christ-like. 

The  doctrine  of  sanctification  must  not  be  so  interpreted  as  to  be 
made  a  doctrine  of  despair  to  all  Christians  who  have  solvation  in 
not  consciously  attained  to  such  an  experience,  particu-  regenera- 
larly  in  the  definite  manner  of  the  second-blessing  the-  '^^^^' 
ory.  No  such  interpretation  can  be  true,  because  it  must  deny  the 
salvation  of  the  truly  regenerate.  The  truly  regenerate  are  saved,  and 
in  the  maintenance  of  a  truly  regenerate  life  must  be  ^  truth  of 
finally  saved.  If  there  is  any  clear  truth  of  soteriology  scripture. 
in  the  Scriptures  this  truth  is  there.  Through  faith  in  Christ  they 
have  received  the  double  blessing  of  justification  and  regeneration. 
By  the  one  they  are  freed  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  by  the  other 
they  are  born  into  the  kingdom  of  God  and  become  his  children.' 
The  texts  given  by  reference  are  replete  with  the  truths  just  stated, 
as  are  many  others  which  might  easily  be  added.  Indeed,  such  is 
the  pervasive  sense  of  the  Scriptures.  We  are  redeemed  by  Christ 
that  we  might  become  the  sons  of  God.^  That  sonship  is  surely  at- 
tained through  regeneration.  "And  if  a  son,  then  an  heir  of  God 
through  Christ."  "And  if  children,  then  heirs;  heirs  of  God,  and 
joint-heirs  with  Christ."'  Wesley  taught  this  doctrine,  and  so  did 
Fletcher  and  Watson ;  and  so  has  every  truly  Wesleyan  representa- 
tive who  has  ever  written  upon  the  subject. 

Is  the  maintenance  of  a  life  in  the  fullness  of  sanctification  essen- 
tial to  final   salvation  ?    Yes,  if  we  are  under  a  dis- 

UNDER  GRACF 

pensation  of  law ;  no,  if  we  are  under  a  dispensation  of 
grace.  But  we  are  under  grace,  and  not  under  the  law.  Such  is 
the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul :  "  For  ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  un- 
der grace.  What  then?  shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not  under 
the  law,  but  under  grace?  God  forbid."^  Our  privilege  and  duty 
point  in  the  same  direction,  and  bid  us  strive  after  all  the  gracious 
attainment  for  which  we  are  apprehended  by  Christ  Jesus. ^  Yet 
with  the  sense  of  many  shortcomings  we  may,  and  we  must  still 
cling  to  Christ  and  hope  in  him.  So  must  we  encourage  others  to 
do.  Never  may  we  break  the  bruised  reed  nor  quench  the  smok- 
ing flax.     The  Master  never  does.° 

4.   TJie  Assurance  of  Sanctification. — The  assurance  of  sanctifica- 
tion is  a  part  of  the  doctrine,  as  it  is  usually  maintained.      the  me.vtal 
There  may  be  some  differences  of  view  respecting  the      state. 
source  or  sources  of  assurance,  while  there  is  agreement  respecting 

'  John  i,  13,  13;  iii,  36;  Eom.  v,  1,  2;  viii,  1. 

''Gal.  iv,  4,  5  ;  1  John  iii,  1.  ^  Gal.  iv,  7;  Rom.  viii,  17. 

4  Eom.  vi,  14,  15.  »  pj^ii,  ^^  12.  ^Isa.  xlii,  3  ;  Matt,  xii,  20. 


380  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  fact  itself.  Such  a  form  of  assurance  is  a  mental  state  respect- 
ing some  fact  or  truth,  and  is  well  known  in  consciousness.  As  a 
mental  state  it  is  much  the  same,  however  greatly  the  facts  or 
truths  which  it  respects  may  differ.  But,  while  the  mental  state  is 
thus  one,  it  may  arise  from  different  sources.  As  in  the  present 
question  the  matter  of  assurance  is  the  fullness  of  salvation,  so 
the  assurance  itself  can  arise  only  from  such  facts  or  agencies  as 
shall  verify  to  the  mind  the  reality  of  such  a  gracious  attainment. 

Two  sources  of  such  assurance  are  usually  claimed:  the  witness 
SOURCES  OF  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  witness  of  our  own  Spirit. 
ASSURANCE.  Thus  thc  wituesscs  are  held  to  be  the  same  in  this  case 
as  in  the  assurance  of  sonship.  There  is  no  apparent  reason  for  any 
question  respecting  the  latter  witness,  but  there  may  be  differences 
of  view  respecting  the  former. 

There  is  a  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  our  sonship,  as  was  shown 
CONCERNING  ^^  ^^^^  doctrinc  of  assurance.  In  that  case  the  Script- 
wiTNEss  OF  ures  are  explicit ;  but  they  are  not  explicit  respecting 
THE  SPIRIT.  gyxeh  s,  witucss  to  the  fullness  of  salvation.  It  is  not 
claimed  that  they  are ;  hence  that  there  is  such  a  witness  can  be 
maintained  only  as  an  inference.  This  is  the  manner  in  which  it 
is  maintained :  "  What  I  would  now  urge  is,  that  if  a  sensible  evi- 
dence of  adoption  may  be  expected,  that  the  same  kind  of  evidence 
m;iy  be  expected,  with  increased  luster,  to  accompany  the  different 
stages  of  our  j)rogress  in  holiness.  If  God  vouchsafe  to  the  merely 
justified  an  evidence  of  gracious  acceptance,  would  he  be  likely  to 
withhold  from  those  whose  hearts  are  entirely  consecrated  to  him 
an  evidence  that  the  offering  is  accepted  ?  Indeed,  the  doctrines  of 
the  evidence  of  adoption,  and  of  entire  sanctification  in  this  life, 
being  proved,  it  seems  a  matter  of  course  that  the  inward  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit  to  the  truth  of  the  latter,  whenever  it  takes 
place,  would  be  afforded."  ' 

So  far  as  this  argument  relates  to  the  assurance  of  sanctification 
THE  PROOF  through  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  it  has  little  weight. 
CONSIDERED.  Hcrc  is  still  the  significant  fact  that,  while  the  Script- 
ures are  explicit  respecting  a  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  adop- 
tion or  sonship,  they  are  quite  silent  respecting  such  a  witness  to 
entire  sanctification.  The  prominence  given  to  this  blessing  must 
not  be  overlooked.  In  the  view  of  not  a  few  it  is  quite  equal  to 
regeneration,  whereby  we  become  the  children  of  God ;  indeed,  in 
the  view  of  some,  even  greater.  Such  is  the  assumption  of  the  ar- 
gument above  cited;  and  that  superiority  is  made  the  ground  of  an 
inference  in  favor  of  a  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  the  attain- 
'  George  Peck:  Christian  Perfection,  pp.  440,  441. 


SANCTIFICATION.  381 

ment  of  sanctification.  The  argument  is  really  this :  if  there  is  a 
direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  our  regeneration  and  souship,  there 
must  be  such  a  witness  to  the  greater  blessing  of  an  entire  sanctifi- 
cation. But  if  there  be  such  a  witness  of  the  Spirit,  and  for  the 
reason  just  given,  why  the  silence  of  Scripture  respecting  it?  Why 
is  his  witness  an  explicit  truth  of  Scripture  in  the  one  case  and  in 
the  other  left  to  inference? 

Nor  can  such  a  witness  of  the  Spirit  be  affirmed  by  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  wholly  sanctified.     In  order  to  any  such 

•^  _     ''  NO  APPEAL  TO 

affirmation,  this  testimony  must  be  so  communicated  to  conscious- 
their  intelligence  that  they  shall  know  it  to  be  given  ''^^^^ 
directly  by  the  Spirit.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  manner  of  the 
Spirit  in  his  witness  to  our  sonship.  Therein  his  testimony  is  given 
simply  in  the  mode  of  an  impression  in  our  consciousness;  an  im- 
pression in  the  form  of  an  assurance  that  we  are  the  children  of 
God;  and  we  are  directly  cognizant  only  of  that  impression,  not 
of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  whereby  it  is  produced.  That  there  is 
such  a  witness  of  the  Spirit  we  know  only  through  the  Scriptures. 
Such  must  be  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  the  state  of  entire  sanc- 
tification, if  there  be  any  such  a  witness.  The  advocates  of  the 
doctrine  assume  this  in  making  the  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  to 
our  sonship  the  chief  ground  from  which  they  infer  such  a  witness 
to  our  sanctification.  But,  being  such,  the  consciousness  of  the 
sanctified  cannot  be  cognizant  of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  therein, 
^nd  therefore  cannot  verify  the  fact  of  such  a  witness.  On  the 
explicit  ground  of  Scripture  we  know  that  there  is  a  direct  witness 
of  the  Spirit  to  our  sonship;  but  there  is  no  such  ground  on  which 
we  may  know  the  fact  of  such  a  witness  to  our  sanctification.  Still 
there  may  .be  such  a  witness.  We  have  neither  denied  it  nor  at- 
tempted to  disprove  it.  We  have  shown  that  there  is  no  sufficient 
ground  for  its  confident  assertion.  It  is  better,  therefore,  that 
such  assertion  be  not  made. 

We  do  not  question  the  fact  of  an  assurance  of  entire  sanctifica- 
tion. There  may  be  a  direct  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  truth  of  the 
to  such  a  gracious  attainment;  but  without  such  a  wit-  -assurance. 
ness  the  assurance  is  still  possible.  The  inner  work  of  salvation  is 
such  that  it  clearly  reveals  itself  in  the  consciousness  of  its  subjects. 
Regeneration  so  reveals  itself.  It  brings  a  heavenly  light  and  life 
into  the  soul ;  it  brings  a  heavenly  peace  and  love  and  joy.  The 
soul  is  deeply  conscious  of  these  new  experiences,  and  finds  in  them 
the  assurance  of  salvation  and  acceptance  in  the  loving  favor  of 
Ood.  It  is  conscious  of  renewed  blessings;  of  blessings  often  re- 
peated ;  of  some  as  very  deep  and  precious.     So  the  full  salvation 


382  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

may  reveal  its  fullness  in  the  consciousness  of  the  happy  recipient. 
The  fullness  of  peace  and  purity,  rest  and  love,  may  thus  be 
known;  but  as  the  facts  of  experience  through  which  our  own 
spirit  witnesses  to  our  sonship  must  ever  be  tested  and  approved  by 
the  Scriptures,  so  must  the  experiences  through  which  it  witnesses 
to  a  full  salvation  be  tested  and  approved. 

5.  Sanctification  a  Common  Privilege. — There  is  a  divine  side 
TWO  SIDES  OF  to  this  question  as  well  as  a  human  side.  If  we  look 
THE  QUESTION.  Qj^ly  at  thc  human  we  shall  more  than  doubt  the  possi- 
bility of  a  full  salvation  in  the  present  life.  In  this  single  view  we 
shall  see  nothing  but  the  weakness  and  sinfulness  of  man.  But  if 
we  look  also  on  the  divine  side  we  shall  see  the  infinite  efficiencies 
which  center  in  the  economy  of  redemption;  efficiencies  which 
work  together  for  our  salvation  from  sin.  Let  us  say,  then,  that 
man  is  corrupt  and  sinful,  and  in  himself  not  only  weak,  but  ut- 
terly helpless ;  but  against  all  this  let  us  affirm  the  truth  that  on 
the  divine  side  there  is  a  mighty  Saviour,  an  all-cleansing  blood, 
and  a  divine  Purifier.  In  these  central  truths  of  our  soteriology 
lies  the  possibility  of  a  present  full  salvation.  If  such  a  salvation 
meant  a  deliverance  from  the  manifold  infirmities  which  are  insep- 
arable from  the  present  life,  then,  indeed,  would  it  be  impossible 
so  long  as  we  live ;  but  such  infirmities  are  not  sins,  and  therefore 
are  not  inconsistent  with  a  state  of  full  salvation. 

Many  texts  mean  the  privilege  of  a  life  in  holiness,  a  very  few  of 
APPROPEiATE  which  may  here  be  cited.  They  so  mean  because  they 
TEXTS.  cannot  be  properly  interpreted  without  the  truth   of 

such  a  privilege.  ''Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Fa- 
ther which   is    in    heaven   is   perfect."     "  But  as  he 

BE   PPRFFfT 

which  hath  called  you  is  holy,  so  be  ye   holy  in  all 

manner  of  conversation;  because  it  is  written.  Be  ye  holy;  for  I 

am  holy.'' '     The  perfection  and  holiness  here  required 

BE  HOLT.  ...  T  - 

must  be  possible  in  this  life.  ''  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
FULLNESS  OF  ^11  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  command- 
LovE.  ment.     And  the  second  is  like  unto  it.  Thou  shalt  love 

thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  hang  all 
the  law  and  the  prophets."^  The  meaning  is  not  that  such  love 
is  literally  the  fulfillment  of  every  duty,  but,  rather,  that  when  in 
its  fullness  it  is  the  ruling  power  of  the  life.  With  the  possibility 
and  the  actuality  of  such  love,  the  fulfillment  of  all  the  other  duties 
must  be  possible.  The  life  would  thus  be  in  holiness.  The  divine 
commandment  of  such  love  means  its  possibility.  "  And  the  very 
1  Matt,  V,  48;  1  Pet.  i,  15,  16.  «  jiatt.  xxii,  37-40. 


SANCTIFICATION.  383 

God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly;  and  I  pray  God  your  whole  spirit 
and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  entire  sanc- 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."'  This  prayer  tification. 
means  the  possibility  of  the  blessings  for  which  the  supplication 
is  made.  The  blessings  have  respect  to  both  the  nature  and  the 
life.  In  the  first  petition,  "  sanctify  you  wholly/'  the  life  may  be 
included,  but  the  nature  cannot  be  omitted;  and  the  words  of 
the  petition  express  their  own  meaning  respecting  its  entire  sancti- 
fication.  The  second  petition  relates  to  the  life,  and  has  the  same 
meaning  of  entirety:  that  ''your  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body 
be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
A  life  in  which  this  prayer  is  fulfilled  must  be  a  life  in  holiness. 
"  But  if  we  walk  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,  we  thorough 
have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and  the  blood  of  cleansing. 
Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  ^  The  saints  in 
heaven  were  thus  cleansed  before  their  entrance  into  that  holy  place: 
"  These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  have 
washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb."^  The  prior  text  clearly  means  a  cleansing  in  the  present 
life ;  for  it  is  while  we  are  walking  in  the  light,  and  on  that  condi- 
tion, that  it  is  promised.  Now  there  can  be  no  question  about 
the  completeness  of  the  cleansing  of  the  saints  in  heaven.  The 
words,  "  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb,"  can  mean  nothing  less.  But  the  words,  "  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin,"  are  not  less  full 
of  the  idea  of  completeness.  There  is  still  a  great  difference  be- 
tween the  saints  in  heaven  and  the  saints  on  earth,  in  that  the 
former  are  freed  from  the  manifold  infirmities  to  which  the  latter 
are  still  subject;  but  infirmities  are  not  sins,  and,  while  they  re- 
main, the  completeness  of  the  cleansing  is  still  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all 
sin." 

The  great  prayer  of  St.  Paul  for  the  Christians  of  Ephesus  is  re- 
plete with  the  ideas  of  a  full  salvation  in  the  present  great  prayer 
life.  That  it  is  a  prayer  involves  no  uncertainty  of  the  o*"  st.  pacl. 
privileges  of  gracious  attainment  which  its  petitions  properly  mean. 
In  no  doctrinal  utterances  was  St.  Paul  ever  more  deeply  inspired 
than  in  this  prayer.  Hence  its  petitions  have  the  same  doctrinal 
meaning  respecting  the  privileges  of  gracious  attainment  that  they 
could  have  if  cast  in  the  most  definite  forms  of  doctrinal  expression. 
Further,  these  petitions  mean  for  all  Christians  the  same  fullness  of 
spiritual  blessings  which  they  meant  for  the  Christians  of  Ephesus, 
'  1  Thess.  V,  23.  « 1  Jolin  i,  7,  '  Eev.  vii,  14. 


384  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

for  whom  they  were  directly  offered.  With  these  preparatory 
statements,  the  prayer  shall  express  its  own  deep  meaning  to  such 
as  devoutly  meditate  upon  its  petitions  :  "  For  this 
cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  is 
named,  that  he  would  grant  you,  according  to  the  riches  of  his 
glory,  to  be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner 
man  ;  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  by  faith ;  that  ye,  bemg 
rooted  and  grounded  in  love,  may  be  able  to  comprehend  with  all 
saints  what  is  the  breadth,  and  length,  and  depth,  and  height ;  and 
to  know  the  love  of  Christ,  which  passeth  knowledge,  that  ye  might 
be  filled  with  all  the  fullness  of  God.  Now  unto  him  that  is  able 
to  do  exceeding  abundantly  above  all  that  we  ask  or  think,  accord- 
ing to  the  power  that  worketh  in  us,  unto  him  be  glory  in  the 
church  by  Christ  Jesus  throughout  all  ages,  world  without  end. 
Amen. " ' 

Wesley :  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection;  Fletcher :  Christian  Perfec- 
tion; George  Peck:  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Christian  Perfection;  Bangs:  Let- 
ters on  Sanctijication ;  Foster :  Christian  Purity ;  Jesse  T.  Peck  :  The  Central 
Idea  of  Christianity;  Mahan:  Christian  Perfection;  Boardman:  The  Higher 
Christian  Life;  Steel:  Love  Enthroned;  Wood:  Perfect  Love;  Merrill:  As- 
pects of  Christian  Experience,  cliaps.  xiii-xv;  Beet:  Holiness  as  Understood 
by  the  Writers  of  the  Bible;  Lowrey:  Possibilities  of  Grace;  Crane:  Holiness 
the  Birthright  of  All  God's  Children;  Franklin:  Review  of  Wesleyan  Perfection; 
Boland :    Problem  of  Methodism. 

1  Eph.  ill,  14-21. 


THE  CHURCH.  385 


CHAPTER  IX. 
THE  CHURCH. 

I.  The  Church  and  Means  of  Grace. 

As  the  Church  is  divinely  constituted  for  the  work  of  evangeli- 
zation and  the  spiritual  edification  of  believers,  and  also  contains 
the  divinely  instituted  means  for  the  attainment  of  these  ends,  it 
may  properly  be  treated  in  connection  with  soteriology. 

1.  Idea  of  the  Church. — The  word  church,  as  we  find  it  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  mostly  the  rendering  of  the  Greek  word  tKK^rjaia. ' 
This  word  is  composed  of  £«,  from  or  out  of,  and  KaXdv,  to 
summon  or  call,  with  the  idea  of  a  convocation  for  the  considera- 
tion or  transaction  of  some  public  business.  The  primary  idea  is 
that  of  an  orderly  assembly,  though  the  term  is  not 
withheld  from  a  thoroughly  disorderly  one.  Of  this  ^^'^'^'^^^  ^°^-^' 
we  have  an  instance  in  the  following  record :  "  Some  therefore 
cried  one  thing,  and  some  another  :  for  the  assembly — eKKXrjaia — 
was  confused  ;  and  the  more  part  knew  not  wherefore  they  were 
come  together."  ^  But  the  primary  idea  of  an  orderly  assembly, 
lawfully  convened  for  public  business,  fully  appears  in  the  words 
of  advice  which  the  town  clerk  addressed  to  this  disorderly  body  : 
*'  But  if  ye  inquire  any  thing  concerning  other  matters,  it  shall  be 
determined  in  a  lawful  assembly  "  ^ — ev  r^  kwoixo)  EKKXTjala. 

In  like  manner.  Christians  are  called  into  churchly  association. 
The  idea  of  a  divine  call  of  believers  in  Christ  often  christian 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  They  are  called  unto  a  ^°^^- 
heavenly  hope  and  a  glorious  inheritance  ;  *  called  into  a  brotherly 
fellowship,  in  the  unity  of  the  Spirit ;  ^  called  of  God  unto  his 
kingdom  and  glory ;  ®  called  with  a  holy  calling,  according  to  the 
divine  purpose  of  grace  in  Christ  Jesus.'  In  other  forms  of  expres- 
sion there  is  present  the  same  idea  of  a  divine  call  :  "  But  ye  are  a 
chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar 
people ;  that  ye  should  show  forth  the  praises  of  him  who  hath 
called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light.'**  Wliile  the 
privileges  and  duties  of  all  who  are  thus  called  of  God  are  made 

'  Acts  viii,  1 ;  xi,  26 ;  1  Cor.  i,  2 ;  xi,  18,  22  ;  2  Cor.  i,  1 ;  Gal.  i,  2. 
'Acts  xix,  32.  3 Acts  xix,  39.        "Eph.  i,  18.        "Eph.  iv,  1-4. 

« 1  Thess.  ii,  12.  '  2  Tim.  i,  9.  » 1  Pet.  ii,  9. 


386  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

prominent  in  these  texts,  the  idea  of  their  organic  association  is 
ever  present.  In  that  association  which  springs  from  their  heavenly 
calling  they  compose  a  Christian  Church.  There  are,  however, 
specially  observable  differences  between  a  Church  in  the  primary 
sense  of  the  term  and  a  Church  in  this  Christian  sense.  In  the 
former  case  the  .  call  is  merely  human,  and  the  convocation  for 
purely  secular  purposes ;  while  in  the  latter  the  call  is  divine  and 
the  purposes  truly  spiritual. 

Such  is  the  deeper  Christian  idea  of  the  term  church,  whether 
TARious  AP-  in  its  purely  local  application  or  as  comprehensive  of 
PLICATIONS.  the  whole  body  of  believers.  There  are  in  the  New 
Testament  many  instances  of  the  former  application.  Thus  we 
read  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem ; '  of  the  church  in  the  house  of 
Priscilla  and  Aquila ;  *  of  the  church  in  the  house  of  Philemon.  ^ 
We  also  read  of  the  churches  of  Galatia  and  of  Asia.*  In  these 
instances  the  plural  term  means  local  churches,  just  as  the  singular 
term  in  the  prior  instances.  But  in  other  uses  it  is  clearly  com- 
prehensive of  the  whole  body  of  Christian  believers.  Such  is  the 
fact  in  the  words  of  our  Lord  :  ''And  I  say  also  unto  thee.  That 
thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church  ;  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.^'*  The  Church  to  which 
Christ  is  made  head  over  all  things  ;  the  Church  by  which  the 
manifold  wisdom  of  God  is  made  known  unto  principalities  and 
powers  in  heavenly  places ;  the  Church  in  which  God  is  glorified 
throughout  all  ages,  is  the  Church  which  comprises  all  true  believ- 
ers in  Christ.*  The  term  is  now  in  comm.on  use  with  like  distinc- 
tions of  meaning.  "We  use  it  in  the  local  sense  when  we  speak  of 
an  individual  church,  as,  for  instance,  of  Trinity,  or  Calvary,  or  St. 
Paul's ;  but  when  we  speak  simply  of  the  Church,  or  the  Church 
of  Christ,  we  use  it  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense. 

There  is  a  present  use  of  the  term  for  which  there  was  no  occa- 
sion in  apostolic  times — a  use  in  its  denominational 

DENOMINA-  •*•  _^_^ 

TioNAL  applications.      "We  now  speak  of  the  denominations 

CHURCHES.  severally  as  Churches  ;  as,  for  instance,  the  Presbyterian, 
the  Protestant  Episcopal,  or  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Any 
Christian  communion  rightfully  organized  as  a  Church  is  entitled  to 
such  designation.  The  rightful  organization  of  our  leading  evan- 
gelical Churches  cannot  be  questioned,  except  on  thoroughly  pre- 
latical  ground — such  ground  as  has  no  place  in  the  New  Testament, 
If  the  principles  of  ecclesiastical  polity  observable  therein  justify 
the  denominational  existence  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 

'  Acts  viii,  1.  2  Rom.  xvi,  3-5.        ^pi^iiem.  2. 

n  Cor.  xvi,  1,  19.        5  jiatt.  xvi,  18.        «Epli.  i,  22  ;  iii,  10,  21. 


THE  CHURCH.  387 

they  must  equally  justify  such  existence  of  the  Presbyterian  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches. 

No  one  denomination  is  the  Church  in  its  comprehensive  sense. 
No  one  is  in  this  sense  the  visible  Church,  which  com-  no  one  the 
prises  all  who  are  in  Christian  communion  ;  no  one  is  church. 
the  invisible  Church,  which  comprises  all  who  are  truly  Christian. 
We  accept  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  therein  declare  our  faith  ''  in 
the  lioly  catholic  Church  ; "  but  this  is  the  general  or  invisible 
Church  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense.     Hence  we 

.„        .,  »     ,1         /-ii  in  SPECIFIC  IDEA. 

still  need  a  more  specific  idea  of  the  Church  than  any 
which  has  yet  appeared.  Such  an  idea  we  may  find  in  some  of  the 
confessional  definitions.  Perhaps  the  one  given  in  our  own  Articles 
of  Religion  is  as  satisfactory  as  any  other  :  "  The  visible  Church  of 
Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men  in  which  the  pure  word 
of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly  administered  accord- 
ing to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are 
requisite  to  the  same."  '  This  is  properly  the  definition  of  a  local 
church,  but,  so  far  as  the  more  vital  facts  are  concerned,  may  be 
accepted  as  the  definition  of  a  denominational  Church,  however 
numerous  the  local  churches  which  it  comprises.  The  chief  ques- 
tion in  this  definition,  and  the  one  most  in  dispute,  concerns  the 
due  administration  of  the  sacraments,  but  it  must  be  passed,  at 
least  for  the  present. 

The  origin  or  historical  founding  of  the  Church  is  a  question  re- 
specting which  there  are  some  differences  of  opinion,  origin  of  the 
Christ  spoke  of  his  kingdom  or  Church  as  yet  future,  church. 
though  close  at  hand  :  ''  From  that  time  Jesus  began  to  preach, 
and  to  say,  Eepent  :  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.'"*  Ac- 
cordingly, when  he  sent  forth  the  chosen  twelve  he  thus  commanded 
them  :  "  And  as  ye  go,  preach,  saying.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
at  hand."  In  the  deeper  ideas  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  here 
designated,  is  not  other  than  the  Church.  He  also  speaks  of  his 
Church  as  yet  future  :  ''Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church."' 
It  is  in  the  meaning  of  these  words  that  his  Church  was  not  yet 
builded  ;  really,  not  yet  founded.  It  is  also  in  their  meaning  that 
Christ  is  himself  the  founder  and  builder  of  his  Church.  There  is 
a  deep  sense  in  which  this  is  true.  Yet  it  seems  equally  true  that 
Christ  did  not  in  any  formal  manner  organize  a  Church.  On  a 
superficial  view  these  facts  may  seem  discordant,  but  a  deeper  insight 
discovers  their  complete  harmony. 

The  practical  forces  of  Christianity,  to  which  all  true  Christians 
are  subject,  must  unite  them  in  social  compact.     Such  a  force  is  the 
'  Article  xiii.  'Matt,  iv,  17.  ^  Matt,  xvi,  18. 


388  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

personal  influence  of  Christ ;  an  influence  not  only  over  those  with 
ORGANIZING  whoui  hc  was  personally  associated,  but  over  all  who 
FORCES.  love  him.     We  see  its  power  over  the  early  disciples 

of  Christ ;  it  not  only  united  them  closely  with  himself,  but  drew 
them  into  living  sympathy  and  loving  fellowship  with  each  other. 
Christianity  was  to  them  a  new  spiritual  life,  which  they  shared  in 
common  ;  and  this  life  was  a  bond  of  union.  By  such  forces  were 
they  drawn  together  in  the  closest  fellowship  ; '  and  their  organic 
union  in  the  constitution  of  a  church  was  the  inevitable  result.^ 

2.  Duty  of  Church  MetYibership. — As  the  divinely  instituted 
means  of  grace  are  mostly  within  the  Church,  membership  therein 
is  necessary  to  their  full  enjoyment. 

The  duty  of  church  membership  often  appears  in  the  New  Tes- 
THE  DUTY  tament.  It  is  present  in  the  emphasis  which  is  placed 
MANIFEST.  upon  the  public  confession  of  Christ:  ''Whosoever 
therefore  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also 
before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall  deny 
me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven."^  Such  a  confession  of  Christ  carries  with  it  the  idea  of 
membership  in  his  Church.  Such  too  is  the  meaning  of  the  duty 
of  an  unyielding  fidelity  to  him,  even  when  subject  to  the  severest 
persecutions.^  There  could  be  no  liability  to  such  persecution,  nor 
call  to  such  fidelity,  without  the  public  confession  ;  nor  such  con- 
fession without  the  membership.  The  same  ideas  appear  in  the 
assurance  of  the  divine  succor  of  the  persecuted,  and  the  promise 
of  a  crown  of  life  as  the  reward  of  their  fidelity. 

The  duty  of  church  membership  appears  in  another  view.  The 
IN  THE  MISSION  ©vangeHzation  of  the  world  is  clearly  the  mission  of 
OF  CHRIS-  Christianity.  But  the  fulfillment  of  this  mission  re- 
TiANiTY.  quires  the  Church,  because  the  instrumental  agencies  for 

its  accomplishment  are  not  else  possible.  Hence  membership  therein 
is  plainly  a  commou  Christian  duty  ;  for  if  one  might  omit  or  refuse 
it,  so  might  another,  and  so  might  all.  In  this  case  there  could  be 
no  Church,  nor  any  of  the  instrumental  agencies  through  which 
the  work  of  evangelization  is  prosecuted.  But  without  such  means, 
and  without  the  Church  which  must  furnish  them,  Christianity 
could  have  no  future ;  nor  could  it  ever  have  attained  a  place  in 
history.  What  if  Peter  and  Paul,  and  the  fathers  and  martyrs, 
and  the  great  reformers,  and  the  many  efficient  heralds  of  the  Gos- 
pel had  assumed  the  position  of  privacy  in  their  Christian  life,  and 
refused  all  organic  union  and  co-operation  ?  In  that  case  their  evan- 

'  Acts  ii,  41-47.  ^  Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics,  vol.  ii,  pp.  700,  701 

"  Matt.  X,  33,  33.         ■*Eev.  ii,  10. 


THE  CHURCH.  389 

gelistic  work  never  could  have  been  wrought,  and  Christianity, 
instead  of  becoming  the  ruling  power  of  the  world  and  the  salvation 
of  mankind,  would  have  perished  in  its  inception. 

3.  Means  of  Grace. — We  may  properly  reckon  as  means  of 
grace  all  spiritual  helps  arising  from  our  union  with  the  Church. 
In  this  view  they  might  be  presented  with  many  distinctions ; 
but  no  advantage  could  arise  from  such  detail  in  their  presenta- 
tion. 

The  churchly  association  of  living  Christians  is  one  of  mutual 
affection  and  sympathy.  They  watch  over  each  other  christian 
in  love.  The  more  stable  and  mature  are  often  a  bless-  fellowship. 
ing  to  the  less  experienced.  Many  a  time  the  kindly  word  of  one 
saves  or  recalls  another  from  an  erring  step.  This  is  in  the  fulfill- 
ment of  a  Christian  duty  :  "  Brethren,  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a 
fault,  ye  which  are  spiritual,  restore  such  a  one  in  the  spirit  of 
meekness  ;  considering  thyself,  lest  thou  also  be  tempted.^*  *  In 
living  churches  there  are  officers  whose  special  duty  it  is  to  render 
this  service.  A  watchful  but  kindly  oversight  is  the  duty  of  the 
pastor,  and  a  duty  which  the  members  must  respect :  '^  Obey 
them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves  :  for  they 
watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  that  must  give  an  account,  that  they 
may  do  it  with  joy,  and  not  with  grief :  for  that  is  unprofitable  for 
you."*     Such  a  service  is  of  inestimable  value  to  many. 

Christian  fellowship  is  a  privilege  of  church  membership,  and 
one  of  large  spiritual  profit.  We  are  constituted  for  uj  chirch 
society,  and  are  accordingly  endowed  with  social  affec-  membership. 
tions.  Life  would  be  utterly  dreary  without  its  social  element. 
But  in  no  sphere  is  there  deeper  need  of  this  element  than  in  the 
religious.  The  Christian  life  would  be  lonely  and  lacking  in  spiritual 
vigor  without  the  fellowship  of  kindred  minds.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  communion  of  souls  alive  in  Christ  is  a  fruition  of  gi'ace. 
Here  is  a  means  of  much  spiritual  profit. 

The  word  of  God  is  a  means  of  grace.  It  is  such  as  read  and 
studied  privately,  and  also  as  heard  in  the  faithful  the  word  of 
preaching  of  its  truths.  As  in  the  treatment  of  regen-  «od. 
eration  we  had  occasion  to  show  that  there  was  no  immediate  regen- 
erating power  in  the  truth,  so  now  it  should  be  observed  that  it  pos- 
sesses no  immediate  power  of  conferring  spiritual  blessings.  This, 
however,  does  not  affect  the  reality  of  its  value  as  a  means  of 
grace.  Its  value  lies  in  the  fact  that,  whether  read  and  studied 
privately  or  duly  heard  as  faithfully  preached,  it  brings  the 
mind  into  communion  with  its  living  realities,  which  summon  to 

'Gal.  vi,  1.  'Heb.  xiii,  17. 

27  ' 


390  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

fidelity  in  duty  and  call  forth  aspirations  for  the  blessings  of  grace 
now  and  the  blessedness  of  heaven  hereafter. 

Among  all  the  divinely  instituted  means  for  the  accomplishment  of 
the  mission  of  Christianity  the  chief  place  is  assigned  to 

Chief  means  «/  x  o 

the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the 
great  commission:  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel 
to  every  creature. " '  While  the  universal  propagation  of  Christianity 
is  thus  required,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  is  the  divinely  pre- 
scribed means  for  its  accomplishment.  The  apostles  wrought  ac- 
cordingly in  the  fulfillment  of  the  duty  assigned  them ;  and  so 
wrought  their  colaborers.  Such  too  has  been  the  method  of  all 
their  faithful  successors  in  the  ministry.  And  such  must  be  the 
method  even  to  the  end  ;  must  be,  because  it  is  God's  way  of  bring- 
ing souls  to  Christ  and  building  them  up  in  the  Christian  life. 
These  views  have  many  illustrations  in  the  history  of  the  Church. 
Every  age  of  evangelistic  power  and  progress  bears  witness  to  the 
faithful  preaching  of  the  Gospel ;  every  truly  spiritual  reformation 
has  been  led  by  such  preaching  ;  every  living  Church  of  to-day  has 
a  living  ministry.  The  preaching  of  the  Gospel  must  not  lose  its 
place  as  a  means  of  grace  ;  therefore  it  must  not  lose  its  efficiency  ; 
for  without  the  latter  it  cannot  retain  the  former.  Ministers 
must  so  preach  the  Gospel  that  it  shall  accomplish  the  jjart  assigned 
it  in  the  divine  plan.  They  have  no  more  sacred  duty,  no  pro- 
founder  responsibility. 

Prayer  is  a  means  of  grace  of  very  large  value.  It  affords  the 
privilege  of  close  communion  with  God,  especially  when 
the  soul  is  alone  with  him  in  its  supplications.  In  this 
communion  there  often  arises  a  deep  sense  of  our  need,  of  our 
helplessness  and  unworthiness ;  but  there  comes  with  it  an  assur- 
ance of  the  divine  fullness  and  love,  which  enlarges  our  petitions 
and  inspires  the  confidence  of  a  gracious  answer  from  our  heavenly 
Father.  There  is  spiritual  benefit  simply  in  such  close  com- 
munion with  God ;  but  there  is  a  larger  benefit  in  the  blessings 
which  he  grants  us  in  answer  to  our  prayers.  The  Scriptures  are 
replete  with  the  promises  of  such  blessings  ;  replete  with  instances 
of  their  fulfillment. 

Some  requisites  are  so  obviously  necessary  to  the  genuineness 
REQUISITES  OF  ^ud  powcr  of  praycr  that  they  need  only  to  be  named. 
PRATER.  Prayer  requires  sincerity.     The  purpose  of  amendment 

and  a  good  life  must  ever  be  breathed  into  our  supplication  for  the 
forgiveness  of  jDast  sins.  Repentance  or  contrition,  and  the  spirit 
of  consecration,  are  equally  necessary.     Without  them  there  can  be 

'  Mark  xvi,  15. 


THE  CHURCH.  391 

no  true  prayer  of  the  soul.     There  must  be  faith  ;  faith  in  the 
form  of  confidence  that  our  petitions  will  be  granted. 

There  are  certain  elements  of  power  in  prayer  which  have  a  clear 
and  sure  ground  in  Scripture.     As  prayer  itself  is  so     elements  of 
vital  to  our  spiritual  life,  and  its  prevalence  so  neces-     power. 
sary  to  its  best  service  therein,  we  may  briefly,  yet  with  profit,  set 
forth  these  elements  of  its  power. 

Fervency  of  mind  is  one  element.  Here  is  its  Scripture  ground: 
''  The  effectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  fervency  of 
availeth  much.'"  Our  translation  does  not  fully  ex-  ^ind. 
press  the  meaning  of  the  original — evepyovixivrj — which  means  in- 
wrought, inworking  with  force  or  energy.  In  such  a  prayer  the 
mind  is  intensely  active.  The  object  for  which  we  pray  is  grasped 
in  all  the  vigor  of  thought  and  feeling.  The  mind  wrestles,  strug- 
gles for  its  attainment.  Such  a  prayer  is  not  a  mere  form  of  words 
upon  the  lips,  but  an  intensity  of  thought  and  feeling  within  the 
soul ;  and  such  a  prayer  "  availeth  much."  Only  with  deep  medi- 
tation upon  the  importance  of  the  things  for  which  we  pray,  and 
with  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  shall  not  be  denied  us,  can 
we  attain  to  such  fervency. 

Another  element  of  power  lies  in  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
There  are  in  Scripture  clear  promises  of  his  help,  and  help  of  the 
statements  which  mean  the  same  thing.'*  Then  we  have  holt  spirit. 
these  explicit  words  :  "  Likewise  the  Sj)irit  also  helpeth  our  infirmi- 
ties :  for  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought :  but 
the  Spirit  himself  maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which 
cannot  be  uttered."  ^  There  is  here  a  clear  recognition  of  our  own 
weakness,  "  for  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought." 
So  "  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmities."  There  are  many  ways 
in  which  he  may  thus  help  us.  He  may  give  us  a  deeper  sense  of 
our  spiritual  needs,  clearer  views  of  the  fullness  and  freeness  of  the 
divine  grace,  and  kindle  the  fervor  of  our  supplication.  But  we 
reach  a  deeper  meaning  in  the  words,  "  But  the  Spirit  himself  mak- 
eth intercession  for  us."  He  joins  us  in  oiir  prayers  ;  pours  his 
supplications  into  our  own.  Nothing  less  can  be  the  meaning  of 
these  deep  words.  The  same  meaning  is  in  the  verse  immediately 
following  r  ''  And  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints 
according  to  the  Avill  of  God." 

Here  is  the  source  of  the  glowing  fervor  and  the  effectual 
power  of  prayer.  There  are  instances  which  cannot  else  be  ex- 
plained. Such  was  the  prayer  of  Jacob ;  *  such  the  prayer  of 
1  James  v,  16.   « Zech.  xii,  10  ;  Eph.  vi,  18.    '  Eom.  viii,  36.     ••  Gen.  xxxii,  24-30. 


392  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Moses;'  and  such  the  prayer  of  Elijah.''  Many  such  instances 
INSTANCES  OF  havc  bccu  witnessed  in  the  history  of  the  Church  ; 
SUCH  PRATER,  yery  different,  indeed,  in  the  circumstances,  but  verily 
such  in  their  marvelous  fervor  and  power.  Praying  souls  have 
been  lifted  far  above  their  own  powers  and  wrapped  in  a  divine 
fervor.  Unyielding  faith  has  grasped  the  blessing,  and  the  gracious 
heavens  have  bent  down  to  the  needy  earth. 

Another  element  of  this  power  lies  in  the  intercession  of  Christ. 
INTERCESSION  I^  liis  liigh-pricstly  office  he  presents  our  prayers  with 
OF  CHRIST.  the  incense  of  his  own  blood  and  the  intercession  of  his 
own  prayers  :  "And  another  angel  came  and  stood  at  the  altar, 
having  a  golden  censer ;  and  there  was  given  unto  him  much 
incense,  that  he  should  offer  it  with  the  prayers  of  all  saints  upon 
the  golden  altar  which  was  before  the  throne.  And  the  smoke  of 
the  incense,  which  came  with  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  ascended  up 
before  God  out  of  the  angel's  hand.'"'  Thus  it  is  that  Christ  pre- 
sents our  prayers  with  the  incense  of  his  redeeming  grace  and  the 
prevailing  pleas  of  his  intercession. 

With  the  clear  apprehension  of  such  elements  of  its  power,  even 
the  rarest  instances  of  the  fervor  and  efficacy  of  prayer 

REST7MK  •  ^       •/  J.         •/ 

should  cause  no  surprise.  We  must  think  that  our 
heavenly  Father  will  graciously  hear  the  supplications  of  his  chil- 
dren, even  of  the  feeblest,  when  in  the  use  of  their  own  powers  they 
pour  their  souls  into  their  petitions.  Even  earthly  parents  answer 
the  prayers  of  their  children  :  "  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to 
give  good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask  him  ?  "  * 
But  far  greater  powers  than  our  own  are  at  work  in  our  prayers, 
particularly  in  their  higher  forms  of  fervency.  The  Holy  Spirit 
helps  our  infirmities,  lifts  us  up  into  a  strength  infinitely  above 
our  own,  and  breathes  his  own  prayers  into  our  supplications. 
Then  our  great  High  Priest  receives  these  supplications,  and  through 
the  blood  of  atonement  presents  them  in  his  own  intercession. 
Prayer  now  rises  above  all  that  is  merely  human  and  takes  unto  itself 
the  efficiencies  of  divinity.  The  marvel  then  is,  not  that  prayer 
sometimes  has  such  power,  but  that  we  so  rarely  attain  to  its 
exercise. 

4.  77ie  Sacraments. — We  here  view  the  sacraments  as  means  of 
grace.  Other  important  questions  respecting  them  must  be  deferred 
for  separate  treatment. 

The  term  sacrament  is  from  the  Latin  word  sacramentum,  which 
in  its    classical    use   meant    the   pledge-money   deposited   by   the 

'  Exod.  xxxii,  9-14.      « james  v,  17,  18.      '  Rev,  viii,  3,  4.      "  Matt,  vii,  11. 


THE  CHURCH.  393 

parties  at  issue  in  a  lawsuit,  and,  at  a  later  date,  the  security  which 
they  gave  instead.  It  also  meant  the  oath  of  a  soldier  meaning  op 
whereby  he  pledged  his  fidelity  in  the  military  service.  the  term. 
Finally  it  meant  simply  an  oath,  obligation,  or  bond.  On  the 
ground  of  such  ideas  the  Latin  fathers  applied  the  term  to  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.  These  sacred  ordinances  were  viewed  as 
sacraments  because  the  observance  of  them  meant  an  assumption 
of  the  obligations  of  a  Christian  life  and  a  pledge  of  fidelity  to 
Christ.  Such  they  are  as  viewed  on  the  human  side ;  but  they 
have  a  sacramental  meaning  also  from  the  divine  side.  They  are 
signs  and  pledges  of  the  divine  grace.  Such  meaning  is  expressed 
in  one  of  our  own  articles  of  faith :  "  Sacraments  confessional 
ordained  of  Christ  are  not  only  badges  or  tokens  of  statements. 
Christian  men's  profession,  but  rather  they  are  certain  signs  of 
grace,  and  God's  good  will  toward  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  work 
invisibly  in  us,  and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and 
confirm,  our  faith  in  him. " '  The  two  views  are  thus  combined : 
•"A  sacrament  is  an  holy  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ  in  his 
Church,  to  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit  unto  those  that  are  within  the 
covenant  of  grace  the  benefits  of  his  mediation  ;  to  strengthen 
and  increase  their  faith,  and  all  other  graces,  to  oblige  them  to 
obedience."" 

The  sacraments  have  a  symbolical  character.  Baptism  represents 
the  work  of  regeneration  through  the  agency  of  the  symbolical 
Holy  Spirit.  The  Supper  represents  the  atonement  in  character. 
the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ.  It  is  also  commemorative  of  his 
death.  Both  the  emblematic  and  the  memorial  services  are  presented 
in  a  single  text  of  Scripture.  When,  in  the  institution  of  the 
supper,  Christ  gave  the  bread  to  his  disciples,  he  said  :  "  Take,  eat ; 
this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had 
supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood  :  this 
do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often 
as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's 
death  till  be  come."  ' 

Much  account  is  made  of  the  sacraments  as  seals.  The  view  is 
"well  stated  in  the  following  citation  :  "  They  are  also 

.  AS  SEAL"^ 

seals.  A  seal  is  a  confirming  sign,  or,  according  to 
theological  language,  there  is  in  a  sacrament  a  signum  signijicans, 
and  a  signum  confirmans  ;  the  former  of  which  is  said,  significare, 
to  notify  or  to  declare  ;  the  latter,  ohsignare,  to  set  one's  seal  to,  to 
"witness.  As,  therefore,  the  sacraments,  when  considered  as  signs, 
'  Article  xvi.         '  Westminster  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  162.        '  1  Cor.  xi,  34-26. 


394  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

contain  a  declaration  of  the  same  doctrines  and  promises  which  the 
written  word  of  God  exhibits,  but  addressed  by  a  significant 
emblem  to  the  senses  ;  so  also  as  seals,  or  pledges,  they  confirm  the 
same  promises  which  are  assured  to  us  by  God's  own  truth  and 
faithfulness  in  his  word  (which  is  the  main  ground  of  all  affiance  in 
his  mercy),  and  by  his  indwelling  Spirit  by  which  we  are  'sealed,' 
and  have  in  our  hearts  '  the  earnest '  of  our  heavenly  inheritance. 
This  is  done  by  an  external  and  visible  institution  ;  so  that  God  has 
added  these  ordinances  to  the  promises  of  his  word,  not  only  to 
bring  his  merciful  purpose  toward  us  in  Christ  to  mind,  but  con- 
stantly to  assure  us  that  those  who  believe  in  him  shall  be  and  are 
made  partakers  of  his  grace.  These  ordinances  are  a  pledge  to 
them  that  Christ  and  his  benefits  are  theirs,  while  they  are  required, 
at  the  same  time,  by  faith,  as  well  as  by  the  visible  sign,  to  signify 
their  compliance  with  his  covenant,  which  may  be  called  '  setting 
to  their  seal."" 

In  considering  the  sacraments  as  means  of  grace  we  should  not 
LIMITATION  OF  ovcrlook  tlic  limitation  which  such  designation  imposes. 
MEANS.  Means  to  ends  have  no  intrinsic  power  for  their  effect- 

uation. Means  of  grace  are  not  in  themselves  grace,  nor  fountains 
of  grace,  but  simply  aids,  in  the  proper  use  of  which  grace  is 
attained.  All  this  is  true  of  the  sacraments.  They  are  not  in  them- 
selves grace,  nor  the  immediate  source  of  grace.  There  is  no  profit 
in  their  observance  without  the  proper  mental  exercise ;  no  benefit 
in  any  merely  mechanical  or  magical  mode.  The  doctrine  of  such 
benefit  is  a  pernicious  error,  which  has  been  widely  and  deeply 
harmful  to  the  spiritual  life.  It  is  a  doctrine  of  salvation  without 
sanctification.  The  substance  is  lost  in  the  ceremony  ;  the  circum- 
cision of  the  heart,  in  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh.  The  error 
carries  with  it  ecclesiasticism  and  sacerdotalism,  transubstantiation 
and  consubstantiation. 

How,  then,  are  the  sacraments  means  of  grace  ?  In  the  same 
manner  as  the  word  of  God.  In  the  latter  we  have  the  best  exem- 
SACRAMENTS  pllficatiou  of  thc  former.  And  we  have  already  seen 
AS  MEANS.  how  the  word  of  God  is  a  means  of  grace.  It  is  such 
as  it  makes  duty  clear  to  us  and  sets  before  us  incentives  to  its  ful- 
fillment ;  such,  as  it  reveals  the  salvation  in  Christ  and  assures  us 
of  its  attainment  on  a  compliance  with  its  terms.  In  the  form  of 
signs,  or  in  the  mode  of  representation,  the  sacraments  fulfill  like 
offices.     Through  them  such  lessons  are  impressively  given. 

Baptism  sets  before  us  the  need  of  spiritual  regeneration,  and 
points  us  to  its  divine  source  in  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
'  Watson  :  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  612. 


THE  CHURCH.  395 

The  Lord's  Supper  signifies  to  us  the  atonement  in  his  death  as 
the  only  ground  of  our  salvation.  In  this  manner  the  great  lesson 
is  most  impressively  given.     Therein  Christ  crucified 

1,1/.  ,         T  •  1  J.  AS  SYMBOLS. 

IS  openly  set  beiore  us.'  in  no  service  do  we  get  nearer 
to  the  cross.  Still,  there  is  no  spiritual  attainment  unless  we 
grasp  in  thought  tlie  great  truth  of  the  atonement,  and  in  peni- 
tence and  faith  appropriate  the  provisions  of  its  grace.  The  grace 
we  need  is  not  in  the  water,  but  in  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  its  baptismal  use  represents  ;  not  in  the  bread  and  wine,  but 
in  the  atonement  which  their  sacramental  use  signifies. 

That  the  sacraments  are  seals  means  no  other  mode  of  sjDiritual 
benefit.     It  is  true  that  they  are  something  more  than  mere  signs 
of  grace  ;  they  are  divine  pledges  of  its  bestowment. 
But  the  bestowment  is  pledged  only  on  the  proper  con-  '^^  seals. 

ditions  ;  and  these  lie,  not  in  the  mere  observance  of  the  sacraments, 
but  in  the  proper  mental  exercise.  Hence  there  is  in  their  sealing 
office  no  new  law  of  spiritual  benefit.  The  promises  of  God  are  a 
means  of  grace  as  they  warrant  our  faith.  A  divine  seal  or  pledge 
is  the  same,  with  the  only  difference  that  it  may  be  a  stronger  war- 
rant. But  it  can  be  such  only  as  viewed  from  the  human  side.  On 
the  divine  side  God's  pledge  can  add  nothing  to  the  certainty  of  his 
promise,  which  rests  simply  on  his  own  fidelity.  Hence  it  is  in  con- 
descension to  our  weakness  that  he  pledges  his  own  good  will  toward 
us.  Thus  when  God  made  promise  to  Abraham  he  ratified  it  by  an 
oath,  that  both  he  and  "  the  heirs  of  promise  "  with  him  might  have 
the  stronger  assurance  of  its  fulfillment."  The  oath  of  God  is  not 
without  value  because  it  could  really  add  nothing  to  the  certainty 
of  his  promise  ;  it  is  of  value  because  it  helps  the  weakness  on  the 
human  side  and  gives  the  stronger  warrant  of  faith.  In  such  a 
manner  the  sacraments,  as  seals  of  the  divine  covenant,  are  means 
of  grace. 

II.  Christian  Baptism. 

1.  Meaning  of  the  Rite. — Baptism  is  the  sign  of  spiritual  regen- 
eration. This  is  its  central,  though  not  its  only,  meaning.  These 
statements  accord  with  its  definition  in  our  Article  of  Religion  : 
"  Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession  and  mark  of  difference 
whereby  Christians  are  distinguished  from  others  that  are  not  baj)- 
tized  ;  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth. " ' 
Such  in  substance  is  the  doctrine  of  other  Protestant  Churches, 
particularly  of  those  in  the  line  of  the  Reformed.* 

In  some  instances  baptism  seems  closely  related  to  justification  ; 

'Gal.  iii,  1.  ^Heb.  vi,  13-18.  ^^ticle  xvii. 

*  Westminster  Confession,  chap,  xxviii. 


396  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

quite  as  closely,  indeed,  as  to  regeneration.  It  must  be  so  re- 
RELATioN  lated  in  the  great  commission  ;  for  justification  is  a  part 
TO  jusTiFi-  of  the  salvation  therein  set  forth. ^  There  is  a  like  mean- 
cATioN.  j^g  ^^  ^j^g  words  of  Ananias  to  Saul :  "  And  now  why 

tarriest  thou  ?  arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  call- 
ing on  the  name  of  the  Lord."*  This  washing  must  include  the 
remission  of  sins.  The  most  notable  instance  appears  in  the  words 
of  Peter  in  his  sermon  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  :  "  Then  Peter  said 
unto  them.  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
NOT  AS  A  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. "  ^  Yet  baptism  is  not  to  be 
coNMTioN.  thought  conditional  to  justification  in  the  manner  that 
faith  is.  Much  less  can  we  think  it  a  saving  ordinance.  Faith  is  a 
necessary  condition  of  justification,  while  baptism  is  not.  That  it  is 
not  is  conceded  by  all  wlio  require  the  profession  of  a  state  of  grace  in 
order  to  baptism  ;  for  such  a  state  must  include  justification  ;  and 
it  is  a  very  plain  fact  that  baptism  cannot  be  the  necessary  con- 
dition of  a  state  of  grace  which  must  precede  its  observance.  The 
meaning  of  the  text  cited  is,  that  baptism  is  a  sign  or  profession 
of  the  faith  on  which  justification  or  the  remission  of  sins  is  re- 
ceived. It  is  also  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian  Church, 
just  as  circumcision  was  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  or  the  Jewish  Church. 

It  is  still  true,  as  before  stated,  that  baptism  is  specially  the 
sign  of  spiritual  regeneration.  As  water  purifies  our  physical 
THE  SIGN  OF  ii^ture,  SO  in  its  baptismal  use  it  signifies  a  purification 
REGENERA-  of  our  moral  nature  through  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
"*''^'  Spirit.     This  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  our  Lord: 

"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God."*  The  baptism  is  the  sign  of  the  moral 
purification  which  is  efficaciously  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Such,  too,  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  :  "  Not  by  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved 
us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  ^  Here  the  only  efficacious  regeneration  is  in  the  renew- 
ing power  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  of  which,  therefore,  the  baptismal 
regeneration  must  be  the  sign. 

2.  Mode  of  Adtninisf ration. — The  questions  respecting  the  mode 
and  the  subjects  of  baptism  have  been  much  in  dispute.  Both 
have  been  frequently  and  elaborately  discussed ;  so  that  ample 
sources  of  information   are  easily  at  the   command   of  any  who 

'  Mark  xvi,  15,  16.  ^  j^cts  xxii,  16.  'Acts  ii,  38. 

*  Jolm  iii,  5.  ^  Titus  iii,  5. 


THE  CHURCH.  397 

vould  thoroughly  study  them.     Our  own  treatment  must  be  limited 
to  brief  statements. 

The  original  words  specially  concerned  in  the  question  of  mode 
are  /Jarrrw  and  y3a7r-tyw.  The  immersionist  relies  much  upon  them 
for  the  proof  of  his  doctrine.  His  argument  is  based  upon  their 
meaning  in  classical  use ;  but,  wliile  it  may  be  pre-  ^he  original 
sented  with  seeming  strength,  it  is  far  from  being  con-  words. 
elusive.  If  in  such  use  these  words  invariably  meant  immersion, 
the  fact  would  not  itself  prove  that  such  is  the  only  mode  of  Chris- 
tian baptism.  It  Avould  not  so  prove  for  the  reason  that  in  many 
instances  Greek  words  receive  new  meanings  in  their  biblical  use. 
We  have  an  illustration  in  the  words  for  holiness,  the  new  mean- 
ings of  which  were  pointed  out  in  our  treatment  of  sanctification. 
Many  instances  might  easily  be  added.  It  will  be  shown  that  the 
words  relating  to  baptism  are  used  in  Scripture  without  the  mean- 
ing of  immersion.  Further,  while  such  is  the  common  meaning  in 
their  classical  use,  there  are  exceptions.  This  is  the  classical 
position  of  writers  of  the  best  scholarship) — immersion-  usage. 
ists  included.  Indisputable  instances  of  such  use  are  given.' 
Hence  it  is  futile  to  attempt  to  prove  from  the  classical  use  of  the 
original  words  that  immersion  is  the  only  mode  of  Christian  bap- 
tism. The  question  of  mode  must  be  studied  in  the  biblical  use  of 
these  words  and  in  the  light  of  the  instances  of  bajitism  recorded 
in  the  !N"ew  Testament.  Other  facts  which  concern  the  question 
will  be  noticed  in  the  proper  place. 

In  the  biblical  use  of  the  original  words  there  are  instances  in 
which  the  idea  of  immersion  is  inadmissible,  and  also  instances  in 
which  it  is  excluded.  In  the  ceremonial  cleansing  of 
a  leper  two  birds  were  used  in  the  following  manner  :  without  tuk 
"  And  the  priest  shall  command  that  one  of  the  birds  be  i^^-*-  ^f  im- 
killed  in  an  earthen  vessel  over  running  water.  As  for 
the  living  bird,  he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet, 
and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  dip — lidxpei — them  and  the  living  bird  in 
the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed  over  the  running  water. ^'  *  It 
is  obvious  that  immersion  is  an  impossible  meaning  of  the  original 
word  in  this  case.  The  living  bird  could  not  be  immersed  in  the 
blood  of  the  slain  bird  ;  much  less  could  the  living  bird,  with  the 
cedar  wood  and  the  scarlet  and  the  hyssop,  be  so  immersed.  Boaz 
said  to  Ruth,  ''Dip — pdipei^ — thy  morsel  in  the  vinegar.'"  It  is 
true  that  immersion  is  not  an  impossibility  in  this  case,  but  the 
notion  of  it  is  surely  very  unnatural  to  the  action  invited.     "When 

'  Beecher  :  Baptism,  pp.  9-18  ;  Dale  :  Classic  Baptism 
«Lev.  xiv,  5,  6.  ^Ruth  ii,  14. 


398  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

it  is  said  that  Jonathan  dipped — E(3axpev — the  end  of  a  rod  in  a  honey- 
comb, it  cannot  mean  that  the  immersion  of  the  end  was  a  neces- 
sary part  of  his  action.'  ''That  thy  foot  may  be  dipped — /3a^^ — - 
in  the  blood  of  thine  enemies."^  Here  immersion  would  be  an 
unnatural  meaning  ;  indeed,  an  impossibility,  except  in  a  most  ex- 
traordinary case.  It  is  said  of  Nebuchadnezzar  that  ''his  body 
was  wet — £/3a^7/ — with  the  dew  of  heaven."^  Such  a  baptism  can- 
not mean  immersion. 

Baptisms  were  frequent  among  the  Jews,  so  that  the  institution 
OTHER  IN-  of  Christian  baptism  brought  no  novelty  into  Jewish 
STANCES.  thought.    There  was  a  baptism  in  the  washing  of  hands. 

The  Pharisee  with  whom  our  Lord  dined  marveled  that  he  had  not 
first  washed — l^^artrio'&ri — before  dinner."  He  marveled  because 
the  custom  was  so  uniformly  observed  :  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and 
all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the 
tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  market, 
except  they  wash — PaTTTLOiovraL — they  eat  not.  And  many  other 
things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing — 
(3aTTTiafiovg — of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables."^ 
The  washing  of  hands  is  not  by  dipping  ;  not  even  when  they  are 
dipped  in  a  basin  of  water.  In  such  case  the  dipping  is  simply  for 
the  purpose  of  taking  ix])  the  water  into  the  hands  in  order  to  the 
washing.  Besides,  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  Jew  to  use  a  basin 
in  this  washing,  but  to  have  the  water  poured  upon  his  hands. 
While  in  the  former  case  the  idea  of  immersion  as  the  mode  of 
washing  is  entirely  inadmissible,  in  the  latter  it  is  utterly  excluded. 
It  is  equally  inadmissible  in  the  washing  of  cups,  and  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables.  Immersion  in  any  such  case  is  merely 
a  matter  of  convenience,  and  does  not  belong  to  the  mode  of  the 
Avashing.  The  aim  is  a  cleansing  or  purification  in  the  use  of 
water ;  and  water  is  applied  in  the  mode  of  pouring,  or  in  a 
manner  answering  to  the  idea  of  pouring.  Such  a  washing  the 
Scriptures  call  a  baptism. 

In  the  Mosaic  economy  there  were  many  ceremonial  services  in 
the  mode  of  sprinkling.     The  assembled  people  were 

CEREMONIAL  ^  O  -ill 

puRiFicA-  thus  sealed  unto  God  in  the  covenant  which  he  made 
TioNs.  with  them.*     The  Levites  were   consecrated  to  their 

office  by  sprinkling  :  "  Take  the  Levites  from  among  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  cleanse  them.  And  thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them,  to 
cleanse  them  :    Sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  tliem."^     "And 

'  1  Sam.  xiv,  27.     « Psa.  Ixviii,  23— Sept.  24.     "  Dan.  iv,  33— Sept.  30. 

*  Luke  xi,  38.  ^  ^ark  vii,  3,  4.  «  Exod.  xxiv,  8  ;  Heb.  ix,  19,  20. 

"•  Num.  viii,  6,  7. 


THE  CHURCH.  399 

almost  all  things  are  by  the  law  purged  with  blood.'"  This  sum- 
mary follows  a  detailed  statement  of  purifications  or  "divers  wash- 
ings " — diacpopoig  PaTTTiofiolg.'  These  purifications,  whether  in  the 
use  of  blood  or  water,  were  in  the  mode  of  washing  or  sprinkling. 
Their  symbolical  meaning  was  the  same  as  that  of  symbolical 
Christian  baptism,  with  the  only  difference  of  a  deeper  mkaning. 
spiritual  idea  in  the  latter ;  and  there  is  no  apparent  reason  why 
this  rite  should  be  restricted  to  the  mode  of  immersion,  while  so 
many  purifications  were  mostly  in  that  of  sprinkling.  It  is  plain 
that  nothing  in  the  mode  can  be  necessary  to  the  service  of  the  rite. 
Baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  as  fully  signifies  an  inner  purifi- 
cation as  baptism  by  immersion.  To  deny  this  is  to  discredit  the 
emblematic  service  of  the  many  rites  of  purifying  in  the  Mosaic 
economy.  The  apostles,  in  common  with  the  Jewish  familiar  to 
people,  were  familiar  with  the  meaning  of  these  rites  '''"''•  apostles. 
and  the  mode  in  which  they  were  administered.  Therefore  only  a 
specific  communication  or  command  could  have  conveyed  to  their 
minds  the  idea  of  immersion  as  the  only  mode  of  Christian  baptism. 
But  no  such  communication  or  command  was  given.  Certainly 
there  is  no  account  of  any.  We  have  seen  that  jSaTirtyw,  in  the  use 
of  which  the  observance  of  this  rite  is  enjoined,  has  no  such  specific 
meaning.  Surely,  then,  it  could  have  no  such  meaning  for  the 
apostles,  whose  minds  were  so  familiar  with  baptisms  and  purifica- 
tions in  the  modes  of  washing  and  sprinkling.  The  facts  pre- 
sented in  this  paragraph  are  strongly  against  the  position  of  the 
immersionist. 

The  gracious  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  often  expressed  as  a  bap- 
tism, and  not  only  without  the  idea  of  immersion,  but  baptisms  op 
in  its  exchision.  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations."  '^"^  spirit. 
*'  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  * 
The  terms  of  the  symbolical  purification  are  here  employed  to 
express  the  efficacious  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  actual  purification 
of  the  soul.  The  idea  of  immersion  is  thus  excluded.  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance  :  but  he  that  cometh  after 
me  .  .  .  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."* 
In  such  baptism  Christ  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Joel :  '^  I  will  pour 
out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh." '  This  fulfillment  began  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.'  The  one  word  of  mode  is  pouring,  not  immersion. 
"  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart  in  full  assurance  of  faith, 
having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our 
bodies  washed  with  pure  water."'     In  like  manner,  the  cleansing 

'  Heb.  ix,  22.     =  Heb.  ix,  10.        ^  iga,  ui^  15  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi,  25.     *  Matt,  iii,  11» 
» Joel  ii,  28.       « Acts  ii,  16, 17.    '  Heb.  x,  22. 


400  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

work  of  the  blood  of  Christ  is  symbolically  expressed  as  in  the 
THE  BLOOD  OF  modc  of  Sprinkling  :  "  But  ye  are  come  unto  .  .  .  Jesus 
SPRINKLING,  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of 
sprinkling."^  "Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the 
Father,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.''^  The  texts  cited  in  this 
paragraph  make  it  plain  that  the  purifying  work  of  the 

CONCLUSION.  ^1     .     r.     .  ,  1  i  •  1        .  •        .^  i 

Spirit  is  expressed  as  a  baptism,  but  ever  m  the  mode 
of  sprinkling  or  pouring,  never  in  that  of  immersion.  Why,  then, 
should  immersion  be  necessary  to  the  baptism  with  water  whereby 
his  efficacious  work  is  symbolized  ?  It  is  plain  also  in  the  same 
texts,  as  it  is  in  others,  that  baptism  is  symbolical  of  the  cleansing 
work  of  the  blood  of  atonement.  Why,  then,  should  immersion  be 
necessary  in  the  symbolization,  when  in  the  actual  cleansing  the 
blood  is  represented  as  applied  in  the  mode  of  sprinkling  ?  Indeed, 
these  terms  of  pouring  and  sprinkling,  as  thus  applied  to  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  blood  of  atonement,  are  quite  conclusive 
against  the  theory  of  the  immersionists. 

We  need  only  a  brief  consideration  of  the  leading  instances  of 
baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  They  will  not  be  found 
in  favor  of  the  immersionist ;  rather,  they  will  be  found  strongly 
against  him. 

The  baptism  of  John  was  special  in  its  end — repentance  for  the 
THE  BAPTISM  Tcmission  of  sins  :  "  And  he  came  into  all  the  country 
OF  JOHN.  about  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  for 

the  remission  of  sins."  *  However,  baptism  itself  was  neither  pecul- 
iar to  his  ministry  nor  novel  to  the  Jewish  mind.  As  we  have  seen, 
baptisms  were  frequent,  and  in  various  modes  under  the  Mosaic  law ; 
so  that  they  were  familiar  to  the  Jewish  people.  John  himself  was 
familiar  with  those  baptisms.  What,  then,  is  the  presumption  re- 
specting the  mode  in  which  he  administered  the  rite  ?  Certainly 
not  that  it  was  uniformly  in  that  of  immersion.  As  the  baptisms 
with  which  he  was  familiar  were  mostly  by  sprinkling,  the  pre- 
sumption is  strongly  against  such  uniformity.  Hence,  unless  he 
was  divinely  commanded  to  observe  the  mode  of  immersion,  or 
there  is  something  in  the  account  of  his  baptizing  which  must 
mean  immersion,  there  is  no  proof  of  such  uniform 'mode,  and  the 
probabilities  are  strongly  against  it.  There  is  certainly  no  account 
of  any  such  divine  command.  It  may  be  assumed  ;  but  assumption 
is  without  logical  value  for  the  immersionist.  It  may  be  assumed  that 
John  was  commanded  to  baptize,  and  then  asserted  that  immersion 
is  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  use  of  which  the  administra- 
'  Heb.  xii,  23-34.  *  1  Pet.  i,  3.  "  Luke  iii,  3. 


THE  CHURCH.  401 

tion  of  the  rite  was  enjoined  ;  but  as  such  an  assertion  is  ground- 
less, so  the  assumption  on  which  it  rests  is  without  vahie  for  the 
proof  of  immersion. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  account  of  the  baptizing  of  John  in  proof 
of  immersion  ;  much  less  of  a  uniformity  of  such  mode,  baptizing  in 
One  proof  alleged  is  that  he  baptized  in  the  river  Jor-  jordan. 
dan.'  The  argument  hinges  upon  the  meaning  of  in — ev;  but  this 
word  often  means  at,  by,  or  with  ;  so  that  immersion  is  no  neces- 
sary meaning  of  baptizing  in  Jordan.  If  John  brought  the  subject 
within  or  to  the  margin  of  the  river,  and  then  applied  the  water  by 
affusion  or  sprinkling,  he  would  be  baptizing  in  Jordan  in  a  manner 
agreeing  with  a  proper  meaning  of  the  original  words. 

Another  argument  is  based  on  his  baj^tizing  at  ^non  because  there 
was  much  water  there.^  But  the  much  water,  or  many 
waters — vSara  noXXd — do  not  necessarily  mean  either 
one  or  many  large  bodies  of  water.  A  few  springs  or  runs,  without 
a  capacity  for  the  immersion  of  an  adult  person  in  anyone  of  them, 
would  fully  answer  for  the  meaning  of  the  original  words.  Further, 
it  is  groundless  to  assume  that  the  requirement  for  immersion  was 
the  only  reason,  and  therefore  the  actual  reason,  why  John  selected 
this  place  of  much  water.  There  was  an  entirely  sufficient  reason 
in  the  daily  wants  of  the  multitudes  drawn  to  his  ministry.  These 
wants  could  be  met  only  in  a  place  well  supplied  with  water. 
Hence  there  is  really  no  proof  of  immersion  in  the  reason  given 
for  John's  baptizing  at  ^non. 

The  number  of  the  baptisms  administered  by  John  in  the  brief 
time  of  his  ministry  is  conclusive  against  the  theory  of 

•^  °  "^  DDRATION    OF 

immersion.  Ten  months  are  a  liberal  estimate  for  the  john's  minis- 
duration  of  that  ministry.'  Ten  months  give  an  aggre-  ^^^' 
gate  of  three  hundred  and  four  days  ;  but  we  require  considerable 
reduction  in  order  to  a  fair  estimate  of  the  actual  number  in  which 
John  baptized.  The  Sabbaths  must  be  deducted,  because  the  Jew- 
ish ideas  and  customs  then  in  force  require  it.  Further,  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism  could  not  have  commenced,  certainly  not 
in  any  considerable  numbers,  with  the  preaching  of  John ;  and 
some  reduction  must  be  made  on  this  account.  Again,  his  ministry 
included  the  winter  and  the  rainy  seasons,  so  that  on  many  days 
the  attendance  of  the  people  would  be  greatly  hindered  ;  and  thus 
there  would  be  a  loss  of  time  for  baptizing.  After  the  proper  re- 
duction on  the  grounds  stated,  not  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty 
days,  really  not  so  many,  could  remain  for  this  service. 

The  baptisms  administered  by  John  were  very  many.     Exact 
•  Matt,  iii,  6.       'John  iii,  23.        '  Hibbard  :   Christian  Baptism,  pp.  20-22. 


402  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

numbers  are  not  given,  but  the  terms  used  warrant  the  estimation 
NUMBER  OF  ot  &  gvesit  multitudo.  "  Then  went  out  to  him  Jeru- 
BAPTisMs.  salem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about 
Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins." ' 
In  other  gospels  the  facts  are  stated  in  like  terms.''  The  places 
here  named  contained  a  large  population,  certainly  not  less  than 
two  or  three  millions.  It  is  not  to  be  thought  that  literally  all  were 
baptized  by  John  ;  yet  certainly  a  great  many  were.  No  other  view 
could  be  consistent  with  the  statements  respecting  the  number. 
Let  us  make  the  low  estimate  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand. 
How,  then,  will  the  case  stand  ?  The  figures  require  an  average  of 
six  hundred  baptisms  per  day,  and  of  one  per  minute  for  ten  hours 
IMMERSION  P6r  day.  Here  are  insuperable  difficulties  for  the  im- 
iMPossiBLE.  mersionist.  No  man  could  immerse  sixty  persons  in  a 
decent  and  orderly  manner  in  one  hour.  No  man  could  endure  the 
strain  of  such  a  service  for  many  successive  days.  Besides,  John 
was  a  preacher  as  well  as  a  baptizer  ;  and  the  time  occupied  in 
preaching,  and  in  necessary  or  unavoidable  conversations  with  the 
many  people,  must  be  deducted  from  the  time  available  for  baptiz- 
ing. Thus,  again,  is  it  manifest  that  John  could  not  possibly  have 
baptized  so  many  in  the  mode  of  immersion.  Indeed,  it  is  scarcely  to 
be  thought  that  he  could  baptize  so  many  individually  in  any  mode. 
Nor  is  there  any  need  to  assume  that  he  did.  It  is  quite  reasonable 
to  think  that  he  baptized  many  together,  as  Moses  did  when  he 
sprinkled  the  assembled  people. ' 

There  is  no  peculiar  proof  of  immersion  in  the  baptism  of  our 
BAPTISM  OF  Lord,  nothing  alleged  as  proof  which  does  not  fully 
OUR  LORD.  appear  in  other  instances.  Only  two  things  can  be  so 
alleged  :  the  meaning  of  the  original  word  which  expresses  the  act 
of  baptizing,  and  the  statement  that  Christ  "went  up  straightway 
out  of  the  water."*  Eespecting  the  first,  we  have  already  seen  that 
immersion  is  not  the  uniform  meaning  of  the  original  word  ;  hence 
it  is  not  conclusive  of  immersion  in  this  case.  The  going  up  out  of 
the  water  was  subsequent  to  the  baptism,  and  therefore  no  part  of 
it.  Neither  do  the  words  mean  a  going  up  from  under  the  water. 
Hence  this  fact  is  without  the  slightest  meaning  in  favor  of  immer- 
sion. Further,  as  the  baptisms  administered  by  John  could  not 
have  been  in  such  a  mode,  except  in  rare  instances,  the  presumption 
is  strongly  against  the  immersion  of  Christ. 

The  baptisms  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  could  not  have  been  in  the 
mode  of  immersion.  ^     The  facts  clearly  show  this.     There  was  no 

'  Matt,  iii,  5,  6.  ''Mavk  i,  5  ;  Luke  iii,  3,  7,  21. 

^Exod.  xxiv,  8  ;  Heb.  ix,  19.  *Matt.  iii,  16.  ^  ^cts  ii,  37-41. 


TlIK  CHURCH.  403 

convenient  place  for  such  an  administration.  Neither  Kidron,  nor 
Siloam,  nor  Bethesda,  nor  all  together  are  to  be  thought  on  the  day  of 
of  as  offering  such  a  convenience.  Nor  can  any  other  pK'^tecost. 
place  even  be  suggested.  There  is  no  intimation  of  a  resort  to  any 
such  place.  With  the  best  place  right  at  hand  such  a  mode  of 
baptism  would  still  have  been  an  impossibility.  The  necessary  time 
Avas  lacking.  It  was  probably  eleven  o'clock  before  the  preaching 
service  was  concluded.  Tlie  necessary  conversation  with  the  con- 
verts, either  with  all  before  the  baptism  began  or  with  each  as  it 
proceeded,  would  require  much  time.  Each  apostle  must  converse 
with  and  baptize  two  hundred  and  fifty  persons  ;  such  must  be  the 
average.  Three  minutes  for  the  conversation  and  immersion  in  each 
case  are  an  unreasonably  low  estimate  of  the  necessary  time.  But 
even  this  estimate  requires  twelve  and  a  half  hours  for  the  whole 
service.  There  is  not  only  this  lack  of  time,  but  the  average  phys- 
ical strength  could  not  endure  the  strain  of  such  a  service. 

The  baptism  of  a  man  of  Ethiopia  by  Philip  is  an  instance  in 
much  favor  with  the  immersionist.  With  him  its  argumentative 
value  lies  chiefly  in  the  facts,  as  stated,  that  ''they 
went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,"  and  "they  came  up  out  of  the  water."'  It  is  obvious 
that  the  baptism  was  a  distinct  act  from  both  the  going  down  into 
the  water  and  the  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  in  which  acts  both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  participated  alike.  Indeed,  the  baptizing 
is  stated  as  an  intervening  and  distinct  act.  Hence  nothing  in  the 
manner  of  going  down  into  the  water,  not  even  if  taken  in  the 
extreme  sense  of  going  under  the  water,  can  determine  any  thing 
respecting  the  mode  of  the  baptism  ;  much  less,  that  it  was  by  im- 
mersion. However,  no  one  can  soberly  interpret  the  going  down 
into  the  water  in  the  sense  of  immersing.  Hence  there  is  no  need 
of  showing,  as  we  might  easily,  that  going  to  the  margin  of  the 
water  would  express  a  proper  and  frequent  meaning  of  the  original 
words.  Instances  of  such  a  meaning  of  elg  may  be  found  in 
the  account  of  several  visitations  to  the  tomb  of  our  Lord  on  the 
morning  of  his  resurrection.^  The  idea  of  "going  down"  has  a 
very  natural  interpretation  in  the  descent  of  a  declivity  from  the 
place  where  the  chariot  stood.  There  is  really  no  proof  of  immer- 
sion in  this  instance  of  baptism. 

Saul  of   Tarsus  was  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  affu-  baptism  of 
sion.     The  facts  in  the  case  clearly  point  to   such  a  g^g''  ^^  ^*^^ 
mode,  and  are  inconsistent  with  that  of    immersion.' 
Only  two  facts  need  be  noted  :  one,  that  he  was  baptized  in  the 

'  Acts  viii,  38,  39.      ^  John  xx,  1,  3,  4,  8.        ^  Acts  ix,  17,  18  ;  xxii,  12-16. 


404  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

house  where  he  had  been  for  three  days  ;  the  other,  that  he  was 
baptized  in  a  standing  posture.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  two 
narratives.  The  first  fact  renders  immersion  most  improbable  ;  the 
second  utterly  disproves  it. 

Certain  baptisms  in  the  house  of  Cornelius  and  in  the  prison  of 
Philippi  may  be  passed  with  a  brief  notice. '  Nothing  in  either 
TWO  OTHER  narrative  favors  the  view  of  immersion  ;  rather,  the 
INSTANCES.  facts  of  each  are  quite  conclusive  of  sprinkling  or  affu- 
sion. In  the  former  account  it  is  plain  that  the  baptisms  were  ad- 
ministered in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  and  in  the  room  in  which 
Peter  preached  to  the  people  therein  assembled.  The  theory  of 
immersion  in  such  a  case  would  require  the  most  unwarranted  as- 
sumption respecting  the  necessary  means ;  while  the  facts  are  all 
natural  and  simple  on  that  of  sprinkling  or  affusion.  The  baptisms 
in  Philippi  were  administered  in  the  prison.  Paul  and  Silas  went 
not  out  of  the  prison  any  further  than  into  the  jailer's  house, 
which  joined  on  to  the  prison.  Nor  did  this  occur  until  after  the 
baptizing.  Only  one  phrase  can  be  opposed  to  this  view  :  "  He 
brought  them  out ;  "  but  this  can  mean  only  from  the  inner  prison 
into  the  outer  apartment.  Here  it  was  that  Paul  and  Silas  preached 
to  the  jailer  and  others  and  baptized  them.  In  this  case,  as  in  the 
former,  the  theory  of  immersion  requires  the  most  unwarranted 
assumption  respecting  the  necessary  means,  while  the  theory  of 
sprinkling  or  affusion  is  without  any  perj)lexity. 

Two  phrases  of  Scripture  are  regarded  by  the  immersionist  as 
quite  conclusive  of  his  theory  :  "  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ; "  "  Buried 
with  him  in  baptism. "  '^  These  phrases  must  be  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  the  passages  to  which  they  belong  ;  for  only  in  this  manner 
can  their  true  meaning  be  reached.  In  each  passage  the  ruling  idea 
is  the  moral  change  wrought  in  the  attainment  of  salvation.  This 
change  is  expressed  as  a  death,  a  crucifixion,  a  burial,  a  resurrec- 
tion. There  is  in  these  forms  of  expression,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  illustration,  a  comparison  with  the  crucifixion,  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  What,  then,  is  the  part  of  baptism  in  the 
expression  of  this  moral  change  ?  Simply  that  of  a  sign ;  nothing 
else.  There  is  then  no  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  Nor  is 
there  in  either  phrase  the  slightest  proof  of  immersion. 

3.   The  Subjects  of  Baptism. — All  who  through  faith  in  Jesus 

THE  TRULY  RE-  Chrlst  eutcr  into  a  regenerate  state  are  proper  subjects 

GENERATE.        of  Christlau  baptism.     This,  however,  does  not  mean  a 

rebaptism  of  any  who  were  baptized  in  infancy.     The  fitness  of  the 

'  Acts  X,  24-48  ;  xvi,  23-33.  '  Eom.  vi,  4  ;  Col.  ii.  12. 


THE  CHURCH.  405 

regenerate  for  baptism  is  fully  recognized  by  Peter:  "Can  any 
man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?  "  *  However,  there  is  such 
unanimity  in  Christian  thought  on  this  question  that  it  may  be 
passed  without  discussion. 

There  is  not  such  unanimity  respecting  regeneration  as  an  invaria- 
ble requisite  to  fitness  for  baptism.  Many  hold  that  it  others  may  be 
is  ;  but  they  can  hardly  claim  the  warrant  of  Scripture,  baptized. 
They  may  be  rigiit  as  to  the  rule,  but  they  are  wrong  in  allowing 
no  exceptions.  The  doctrine  of  Peter  in  his  sermon  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  is  against  them  ;  for  he  therein  enjoined  baptism  in  pro- 
fession of  the  faith  which  should  be  unto  justification  and  regenera- 
tion :  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost." ^  In  like  manner  the  baptism  of  Paul  was 
prior  to  his  regeneration,  as  it  was  prior  to  his  justification.'  In 
view  of  such  facts  the  profession  of  a  regenerate  state  should  not 
be  held  as  an  invariable  prerequisite  to  baptism.  When  there  is 
satisfactory  evidence  of  true  penitence  and  the  purpose  of  a  Chris- 
tian life  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  the  sacred  rite  may  be  ad- 
ministered as  a  means  of  grace  ;  as  a  help  to  the  faith  which  shall 
be  unto  salvation.* 

Are  infants  proper  subjects  of  Christian  baptism  ?  This  is  the 
chief  question  in  issue  respecting  the  subjects.  If  the  the  chief 
question  could  be  appealed  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  question. 
as  authoritative  in  the  case  the  decision  would  be  overwhelmingly  in 
favor  of  such  baptism  :  so  widely  has  this  faith  prevailed.  It  is  not 
a  question  to  be  thus  settled ;  yet  the  very  strong  preponderance  of 
this  faith  is  not  without  weight  on  the  side  of  the  affirmative. 

The  place  of  children,  infant  children,  in  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant means  much  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  The  in-  abrahamic 
stitution  of  this  covenant  is  formally  and  fully  given  in  covenant. 
the  Scriptures.*  Before  this,  however,  great  promises  had  been 
made  to  Abraham  ;  some  of  them  very  similar  to  the  promises  im- 
mediately connected  with  this  covenant,  while  that  respecting  the 
Messiah  was  even  more  specific  and  full  in  the  manner  of  its  ex- 
pression.' These  earlier  promises  were  gathered  into  this  covenant 
made  with  Abraham,  and  therein  sealed  unto  him  and  his  seed. 
This  covenant,  with  its  promises,  was  renewed  with  Isaac,  and  also 
with  Jacob.'     It  is  replete  with  the  promises  of  both  secular  and 

'  Acts  X,  47.                                 2  Acts  ii,  38.  ^  Acts  xxii,  16. 

*  Merrill :  Christian  Baptism,  pp.  10-12.  '  Gen.  xvii,  1-14. 

*Gen.  xii,  1-3  ;  xv,  1-7.           ''"Gen.  xxvi,  3-5;  xxviii,  10-15. 

28  * 


406  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

spiritual  blessings.  The  former  were  fulfilled  in  the  multiplicity 
of  the  progeny  of  Abraham,  in  their  possession  of  the  land  of 
Canaan,  and  in  their  national  greatness  ;  the  latter,  in  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  as  the  promised  seed  of  Abraham,  and  in  the  salva- 
tion which  he  brought  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.' 

That  these  promises  included  the  Messiah  himself,  and  the 
BLESSINGS  spiritual  blessings  of  his  kingdom,  is  clearly  the  sense 
PROMISED.  Qf  ii^Q  Scriptures.  Here  is  this  definite  and  compre- 
hensive promise  :  "  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."*  Christ  is  the  seed  through  whom  this  universal 
blessing  should  come.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  Paul  when  he 
declares  that  this  promised  seed  is  Christ.'  This  is  the  promise  on 
the  warrant  of  which,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  offered  to  all 
the  grace  of  salvation  in  Christ  :  "  For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and 
to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call."*  In  the  fulfillment  of  this  promise  the 
salvation  in  Christ  comes  to  all  without  any  distinction  :  "  There  is 
neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither 
male  nor  female  :  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be 
Christ^s,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promise."*  It  is  in  the  meaning  of  these  words  that  this  promise 
infolded  the  rich  blessing  of  the  Gospel.  Such,  too,  is  the  mean- 
ing of  these  words  :  ''And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would 
justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto 
Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed." " 

That  children  were  included  in  this  covenant  is  too  plain  a  fact 
RIGHTS  OF  to  be  questioned.  They  were  initiated  by  the  same  rite 
INFANTS.  whereby  tlie  promises  of  the  covenant  were  sealed  unto 

Abraham.  Their  initiation  was  not  made  a  matter  of  the  divine 
sufferance,  but  a  matter  of  the  divine  command.  Why  then  should 
they  be  denied  the  rite  of  baptism,  which  in  the  Christian  Church 
occupies  the  place  that  circumcision  occupied  in  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  ?  It  will  be  no  answer  to  ask  in  objection,  What  benefit 
can  baptism  render  infants  ?  because  the  same  objection  would  lie 
equally  against  their  circumcision  under  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 
If  the  reply  should  be  that  the  children  are  not  in  the  spiritual 
state  which  baptism  signifies,  the  answer  is  that  the  same  objection 
would  have  excluded  them  from  the  rite  of  circumcision.  Again,  if 
the  reply  should  be  that  infants  are  incapable  of  the  faith,  on  the 
condition  of  which  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel  are  offered,  the 
answer  is  that  they  were  equally  incapable  of  the  mental  exercises 

^  Merrill :  Christian  Baptism,  discourse  ii.  ■  Gen.  xxii,  18. 

3 Gal.  iii,  16.        "  Acts  ii,  39.        '  Gal.  iii,  28,  29.        «  Gal.  iii,  8. 


THE  CHURCH.  407 

which  in  the  case  of  adults  were  conditional  to  the  spiritual  blessing 
of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  Infant  circumcision  under  that  cov- 
enant warrants  tlie  right  of  infants  to  baptism  under  the  Christian 
covenant — which,  indeed,  is  not  another,  but  the  very  same  in  its 
full  development.  On  the  ground  of  such  facts  only  a  divine  order 
could  annul  the  right  of  infants  to  Christian  baptism  ;  but  no  such 
order  has  been  given. 

The  identity  of  the  Christian  Church  with  the  Church  instituted 
in  the  family  of  Abraham  furnishes  the  ground  of  fur-  one  church 
ther  proof  of  infant  baptism.  The  fact  of  such  identity  in  two  forms. 
is  clear  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures.  Abraham  and  his  family 
were  called  of  God  from  among  the  nations,  and  separated  unto 
himself  as  his  people.  With  them  he  instituted  his  covenant,  with 
all  its  promises.  Here  is  the  central  promise  :  "  And  I  will  estab- 
lish my  covenant  between  me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in 
their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto 
thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee." '  In  this  manner  they  were  consti- 
tuted the  Church  of  God.  This  Church  was  perpetuated,  and  is  in 
its  fullness  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  Jews  as  a  collective  body  ceased 
to  be  the  Church,  many  of  them  being  cast  out  because  of  unbelief, 
or  broken  off  as  branches  of  a  tree,  under  the  figure  of  which  the 
Church  is  represented;  but  the  tree  remained,  and  the  Gentile  con- 
verts were  grafted  thereon  among  the  branches  that  remained. 
Accordingly,  they  were  charged  not  to  boast  against  the  branches, 
but  to  remember  that  they  bore  not  the  root,  but  the  root  them." 

In  this  one,  ever-abiding  Church  there  were  ever  the  same  spirit- 
ual blessings,  with  the  only  difference  of  a  fuller  de- 

°    ^  •'       .  INFANTS   A 

velopment  under  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel.  In  the  right  to 
beginning  circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal  of  these  baptism. 
blessings,  while  under  the  Gospel  baptism  took  its  place  as  the  sign 
and  seal  of  the  same  blessings  ;  but  all  the  while  there  is  the  one 
and  the  same  Church.  Now,  as  by  authority  of  a  divine  command, 
infants  were  entitled  to  the  rite  of  circumcision  in  the  original 
institution  of  the  Church,  on  what  ground  shall  they  be  denied  the 
rite  of  baptism  in  the  same  Church  in  its  Christian  state  ?  As  we 
have  seen  in  another  case,  only  a  divine  command  could  annul  this 
right ;  but  no  such  command  has  been  given. 

The  apostles  of  our  Lord  were  familiar  with  the  place  of  infants 
in  the  Abrahamic  Church  ;  with  the  manner  of  their  initiation  by 
the  rite  of  circumcision,  and  with  the  continuance  of  thought  of 
this  divine  order  to  their  own  time.  What,  then,  the  apostles. 
would  they  naturally  think  of  the  i3lace  of  infants  in  the  Church 
>  Gen.  xvii,  7.  'Eom.  xi,  17-21. 


408  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

under  its  Christian  form  ?  Surely,  that  they  were  to  be  included 
in  its  membership  just  as  they  were  in  its  Abrahamic  form  ;  and 
that  they  were  entitled  to  Christian  baptism,  which  replaced  circum- 
cision as  the  initiatory  rite.  Indeed,  unless  otherwise  ordered,  they 
must  have  thought  themselves  under  obligation  to  administer  this 
rite  to  infants.  When,  therefore,  it  is  demanded  that  we  produce 
the  divine  authorization  of  infant  baptism,  we  answer,  that  no  new 
command  was  necessary  ;  that  the  old  command  remains  in  force, 
and  must  have  so  remained  in  the  thought  of  the  apostles.  The 
substitution  of  circumcision  by  baptism  under  that  command  could 
affect  neither  its  authority  nor  the  obligation  which  it  imposed. 
And  now,  in  turn,  even  with  far  weightier  reason  may  we  demand 
of  the  opponent  of  infant  baptism  that  he  produce  a  divine  order 
which  repeals  the  old  command  or  annuls  its  authority.  There  is 
no  such  order. 

The  words  of  our  Lord  respecting  the  relation  of  children  to  his 
kingdom  clearly  mean  their  right  to  Christian  baptism.  These 
RELATION  TO  words  arc  so  familiar  that  they  here  need  no  formal  ci- 
THECHDRCH.  tatlou.'  That  tlicsc  chlldrcn  wcrc  luf ants  lu  thc  propcr 
sense  of  the  word  is  not  to  be  questioned.  When  brought  to  Christ 
he  received  them  graciously,  and  said,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  He  also  said,  "Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  king- 
dom of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein."  Such 
words  must  mean  a  close  connection  of  children  with  the  kingdom 
of  God.  Such  connection  must  mean  their  right  to  a  close  relation 
with  the  Church  ;  a  right  which  no  admissible  distinction  between 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  Church  can  deny.  The  privilege  of 
such  relationship  must  mean  the  right  to  Christian  baptism. 

Some  hold  that  the  words  of  our  Lord,  as  above  cited,  mean  a 

regenerate  state  of  infants  ;  that  only  on  the  ground  of  such  a  state 

could   it  be   said    that    "  of   such   is  the  kingdom  of 

RESPECTING  .  .      °  . 

INFANT  RE-  God."  If  actually  in  a  regenerate  state  their  right  to 
GENERATION,  "baptlsm  could  hardly  be  questioned — a  fact  which  no 
doubt  favors  this  view.  However,  so  long  as  their  actual  regener- 
ation is  an  open  question,  it  is  doubtful  if  in  this  way  anything  is 
to  be  gained  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  Are  infants  in  a  regener- 
ate state  ?  Our  own  writers  are  divided  on  this  question.  While 
some  maintain  the  affirmative,  we  cannot  think  it  in  accord  with 
tlie  Scriptures  or  the  doctrines  of  our  Church.  It  is  not  consistent 
with  our  anthropology,  as  set  forth  in  our  seventh  article,  nor  with 
the  doctrine  of  our  ritual  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  particularly 
as  expressed  in  the  introductory  part.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the 
1  Matt,  xix,  13-15  ;  Mark  x,  13-16  ;  Luke  xviii,  15-17. 


THE  CHURCH.  409 

Scripture  proofs  of  native  depravity — the  very  proofs  in  which  Meth- 
odism has  ever  grounded  her  own  doctrine  ;  particularly,  with  the 
deep  words  of  our  Lord  in  which  he  sets  forth  the  necessity  for 
spiritual  regeneration  :  "■  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh." 
No  words  could  more  clearly  or  strongly  assert  the  truth  of  native 
depravity.  The  doctrine  of  infant  regeneration,  or  that  all  infants 
are  born  in  a  regenerate  state,  is  openly  contrary  to  this  truth.  The 
suggestion  of  a  post-natal  regeneration  is  without  warrant,  and  out 
of  harmony  with  the  Scriptures. 

"  We  hold  that  all  children,  by  virtue  of  the  unconditional  benefits 
of  the  atonement,  are  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  there- 
fore graciously  entitled    to  baptism."'     While   these 

c'  ''  _  _  ^  _  _         OURDOCTRINK. 

words  base  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  on  their 
membership  in  the  kingdom  of  God  they  omit  all  reference  to  a 
regenerate  state  as  implied  therein.  The  passage  attempts  no  defi- 
nition of  the  nature  of  that  membership,  but  simply  grounds  it  in 
the  universal  grace  of  the  atonement  and  asserts  the  consequent 
right  to  baptism.  AYe  cordially  accept  the  facts  thus  set  forth.  Of 
course  it  is  easy  to  ask  questions  respecting  them  which  may  not 
easily  be  answered.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  assume  a  regenerate 
state  of  infants  our  position  is  beset  with  far  greater  difficulties. 
Infants  are  born  into  the  covenant  of  redemption,  and  are  all  in 
some  measure  recipients  of  its  grace.  If  they  live  to  an  accounta- 
ble age  this  grace  meets  them  at  its  threshold  and,  unless  rejected, 
becomes  their  salvation  ;  if  they  die  in  the  infant  state  it  uncon- 
ditionally regenerates  and  saves  them.  On  the  ground  of  such 
facts  they  may  properly  be  reckoned  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  entitled  to  Christian  baptism. 

The  right  of  infants  to  baptism  is  based  on  their  relation  to  the 
atonement  and  the  offices  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  on  the  faith  of 
their  parents  or  of  any  who  may  represent  them.  Yet  ground  of 
is  it  most  fitting  that  those  who  present  them  for  bap-  rights. 
tism  should  be  graciously  qualified  to  train  them  according  to  all  the 
spiritual  meaning  of  the  sacred  rite,  and  should  assume  the  obli- 
gation so  to  do.  Also,  as  "we  regard  all  children  who  have  been 
baptized  as  placed  in  visible  covenant  relation  to  God,  and  under 
the  special  care  and  supervision  of  the  Church,"  the  Church  herself 
should  be  profoundly  concerned  for  their  proper  religious  training. 

No  instance  of  the  apostolic  baptism  of  an  infant  is  openly  given 
in  the  Scriptures  :  so  much  must  be  conceded.     That       household 
there  were  such  is  most  probable,  as  appears  in  the  in-       baptisms. 
stances  of  household  baptisms  :  "^  of  Lydia  and  her  household  ;  of 
'  Methodist  Discipline,  ^43,  1893.         "^  Acts  xvi,  15,  33  ;  1  Cor.  i,  16. 


410  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  jailer,  and  all  his  ;  of  the  household  of  Stephanas.  If  there 
were  infants  and  infant  baptisms  in  these  families  no  additional 
word  nor  oth^-r  form  of  words  would  be  needed  for  the  expression 
of  either  fact.  If  there  were  infants  the  words  clearly  mean  their 
baptism.  That  there  was  not  one  child  yet  in  an  infant  state  in 
any  one  of  these  families  it  is  most  unreasonable  to  think.  So 
strong  is  the  probability  of  infant  baptism  under  apostolic  admin- 
istration. 

The  historical  argument,  based  upon  very  early  Christian  liter- 
ature, is  strongly  confirmatory  of  the  apostolic  origin  of  infant 
HISTORICAL  baptism.  However,  as  its  full  presentation  would  re- 
PROOF.  quire  an  elaboration  for  which  we  have  no  room,  we 

pass  it  with  a  brief  notice.  It  seems  quite  needless  to  adduce  any 
testimony  from  writers  of  the  fourth  century,  or  even  of  the  third^ 
as  it  will  hardly  be  questioned  that  infant  baptism  was  then  the 
custom  of  the  Church. 

Tertullian  was  a  presbyter  in  the  second  century,  only  a 
century  after  apostolic  times.  His  writings  make  it  clear  that 
infant  baptism  was  then  uniformly  practiced.  If 
in  his  knowledge  such  was  not  the  fact,  or  if  he 
had  known  it  to  be  of  recent  origin,  or  an  innovation  since 
apostolic  times,  the  fact  would  have  been  of  great  service  to  him 
in  support  of  some  peculiar  views  which  he  advocated,  and  he 
certainly  would  have  so  used  it  ;  but  there  is  no  such  use.  The 
sure  inference  is  that  there  was  no  such  fact.  Hence  Tertullian 
is  on  record  as  a  witness  to  the  uniform  custom  of  infant  baptism 
in  his  time — a  custom  long  established  and  of  unquestioned  apos- 
tolic origin. 

In  the  writings  of  both  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  there  is  very 
clear  recognition  of  infant  baptism  as  common  in  the  Church. 
JUSTIN  MARTYR  Thcy  wcrc  Christian  writers  of  distinction  within  fifty 
AND  iREN>«us.  years  of  the  death  of  St.  John.  Irenaeus  was  a  disci- 
ple of  Polycarp,  who  was  a  disciple  of  John.  It  thus  appears 
that  these  writers  were  very  near  to  the  founders  of  Christianity. 
Hence  their  clear  recognition  of  infant  baptism  as  the  custom 
of  the  Church  at  so  early  a  time  is  strongly  confirmatory  of  its 
apostolic  origin. 

Beecher  :  Baptism,  its  Import  and  Modes ;  Hibbard  :  Christian  Baptism ; 
Bickersteth  :  A  Treatise  on  Baptism  ;  Merrill :  Christian  Baptism  ;  Dale  :  Clas- 
sic Baptism  ;  Judaic  Baptism  ;  Johannic  Baptism  ;  Christian  Baptism  ;  Wall : 
The  History  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  Wood  :  Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism  ;  Cook  : 
Christianity  and  Childhood;  Conant :  Meaning  and  Use  of  the  Word  Baptizein; 
Noel :  Essay  on  Christian  Baptism ;  Carson  :  Baptism  in  its  Mode  and  Subjects. 


THE   CllUKCH.  411 

III.  The  Lord's  Supper. 

1.  InstiUition  of  the  Supper. — Words  of  Scripture  furnish  the 
best  statement  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  "  And  as 
they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and 
gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said.  Take,  eat  ;  this  is  my  body.  And 
he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  words  of  in- 
them,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  of  it ;  for  this  is  my  blood  stitittiox. 
of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 
sins."'  As  other  statements  in  the  gospels  are  in  meaning  the 
same  their  citation  may  be  omitted.''  We  add  the  words  of  St. 
Paul  :  *'  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered 
unto  you,  That  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he  was 
betrayed,  took  bread  :  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it, 
and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you  :  this 
do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took 
the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  testa- 
ment in  my  blood  :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance 
of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye 
do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  ' 

2.  Nature  of  tlie  Supper. — The  true  doctrine  of  the  supper  lies 
in  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  institution,  as  above  cited.  That 
meaning  must  be  found  in  their  true  interpretation.  It  is  well 
known  that  interpretations  widely  differ  ;  and  a  glance  at  such  dif- 
ferences may  clear  the  way  to  the  truth  of  the  question.  With  the 
omission  of  slighter  differences,  "  there  are  but  three  ex-  three  expo- 
positions  made  of  '  this  is  my  body  : '  the  first,  this  is  in  sitions. 
itself  before  participation  really  and  truly  the  natural  substance  of 
my  body,  by  reason  of  the  coexistence  which  my  omnipotent  body 
hath  with  the  sanctified  element  of  bread,  which  is  the  Lutherans' 
interpretation  ;  the  second,  this  is  in  itself  and  before  participation 
the  very  true  and  natural  substance  of  my  body,  by  force  of  that 
Deity  which  with  the  words  of  consecration  abolisheth  the  sub- 
stance of  bread,  and  substituteth  in  the  place  thereof  my  body, 
which  is  the  Popish  construction  ;  the  last,  this  halloAved  food, 
through  concurrence  of  divine  power,  is  in  verity  and  truth,  unto 
faithful  receivers,  instrumentally  a  cause  of  that  mystical  partici- 
pation Avhereby  as  I  make  myself  wholly  theirs,  so  I  give  them  in 
hand  an  actual  possession  of  all  such  saving  grace  as  my  sacrificed 
body  can  yield,  and  as  their  souls  do  presently  need,  this  is  to  them, 
and  in  them,  my  body."*     The  last  interpretation  is  substantially 

'  Matt,  xxvi,  26-28.  '  Mark  xiv,  22-24  ;  Luke  xxii,  19,  20. 

^  1  Cor.  xi,  23-26.  *  Hooker  :  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  v,  167. 


412  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

that  of  the  Eeformed  Churches  and  other  evangelical  Protestants. 
The  first  two,  while  widely  different  in  some  things,  are  really  one 
in  the  deeper  principle — that  of  an  actual  partaking  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  supper.  Both  are  grounded  in  a  literal 
sense  of  the  words  of  institution  :  '  this  is  my  body/  '  this  is  my 
blood.'  The  real  difference  concerns  the  manner  in  which  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  so  present  in  the  supper  as  to  be  really,  lit- 
erally partaken  of  by  the  communicant. 

In  the  Lutheran  view  there  is  no  transubstantiation  of  the  bread 
LUTHERAN  ^ud  wlnc,  no  change  of  their  own  constitution,  but  the 
DOCTRINE.  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  so  present  in,  with,  or 
under  these  elements  as  to  be  really,  literally  partaken  of  in  the 
communion  of  the  supper.  Such  participation  is  in  no  wise  de- 
pendent upon  the  spiritual  state  of  the  communicant.  The  doc- 
trine is  that  the  ungodly,  as  really  as  the  most  devout,  eat  the  flesh 
and  drink  the  blood  of  Christ.  It  must  be  so  from  the  literal  in- 
terpretation of  the  words  of  institution,  ''this  is  my  body,"  "  this 
is  my  blood ;  "  must  be  so  from  the  very  nature  of  the  real  presence 
maintained. 

•  There  is  no  such  real  presence  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ 
NO  SUCH  PREs-  ^^  t^^®  supper  as  this  doctrine  maintains.  It  is  not 
ENCE.  possible  that  there  should  be.     The  impossibility  was 

pointed  out  in  our  review  of  the  Lutheran  Christology.  The  doc- 
trine requires  the  omnipresence,  or  at  least  multipresence,  of  the 
body  of  Christ ;  and  here  is  the  impossibility  which  we  allege.  It 
cannot  be  overcome  by  the  assumption  of  a  communication  of  di- 
vine attributes  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  on  the  ground  of  its 
union  with  the  divine  in  his  personality.  That  union  no  more  lifts 
his  human  nature  into  the  infinitude  of  the  divine  than  it  lowers 
his  divine  nature  into  the  finiteness  of  the  human. 

The  doctrine  is  grounded  on  a  literal  meaning  of  the  words  of  in- 
OF  THE  LIT-  stitution,  "  this  is  my  body,"  "  this  is  my  blood  ;  "  but 
ERAL  SENSE,  thls  mcauiug  is  unnatural  and  false  ;  quite  as  unnatural 
and  false  as  would  be  the  interpretation  of  the  words,  "  "Washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,"  in  the  sense  of  a  literal  washing 
in  the  blood  of  Christ.  And  the  doctrine  itself  must  widely  depart 
from  a  literal  sense  before  it  can  reach  the  meaning  of  the  real 
presence  in  the  words  of  institution.  When,  with  bread  and  cup 
ONLY  LITERAL  1^  haud,  ChHst  says,  "this  is  my  body,"  "this  is  my 
SENSE.  blood,"  the  only  literal  sense  is,  this  bread  is  my  body, 

this  cup  is  my  blood.  The  words  of  St.  Paul,  as  before  cited, 
place  this  view  beyond  question.'     Hence  in  a  strictly  literal  inter- 

'  1  Cor.  xi,  23-36. 


THE  CHURCH.  413 

pretation  the  words  of  institution  must  mean  that  the  bread  and 
wine  are  the  body  and  the  blood  of  Christ.  This,  however,  is  con- 
trary to  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  according  to  which  not  the  lu- 
these  elements  suffer  no  change  in  their  consecration,  theran  view. 
but  remain  bread  and  wine.  How,  then,  after  all  the  insistence 
upon  a  literal  sense  of  the  words  of  institution,  do  Lutherans  con- 
struct their  doctrine  ?  They  first  invest  the  body  of  Christ  with 
the  necessary  ubiquity,  and  then  assert  his  bodily  presence  in,  with, 
or  under  the  bread  and  wine.  We  could  hardly  think  of  a  doctrine 
of  the  supper  more  remote  from  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  of 
our  Lord  in  its  institution. 

In  the  Papistical  doctrine  of  the  supper  Christ  is  held  to  be  liter- 
ally present  in  his  flesh  and  blood,  through  the  mode  of  papistical 
transubstantiation.  By  virtue  of  the  words  of  conse-  doctrine. 
cration  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ ;  so  that  literally,  orally,  or  by  the  mouth  we  eat  his  flesh 
and  drink  his  blood  in  the  communion  of  the  supper.  The  doc- 
trine further  is,  that  Christ  is  present  in  the  supper  not  only  in 
body,  but  also  in  his  soul  and  divinity.  It  follows  that  he  may  be 
worshiped  in  the  eucharist,  and  the  eucharist  itself  be  presented 
to  the  people  for  their  adoration. 

The  only  ground  of  such  a  doctrine  lies  in  the  assumption  of  a 
literal  sense  of  the  words,  "  this  is  my  body,"  "  this  is  assumed  lit- 
my  blood."  Transubstantiation  itself  is  a  mere  infer-  eral sense. 
ence  from  this  assumption.  The  bread  and  wine  must  be  changed 
into  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  if  they  are  really  present  in  the 
supper,  because  there  is  no  other  way  of  accounting  for  their  pres- 
ence. This  is  the  manner  in  which  the  doctrine  is  constructed. 
Without  a  literal  sense  of  the  words  of  institution  it  has  not  the 
slightest  ground  in  Scripture. 

The  words  of  institution  are  easily  interpreted  without  the  literal 
sense.  By  a  very  common  figure  of  speech  we  give  to  figurative 
ran  emblem  or  sign  the  name  of  that  which  it  represents.  sense. 
This  is  often  done  in  Scripture.  Thus  circumcision  is  called  the 
covenant  of  God,  of  which  it  was  simply  the  sign  or  seal.'  The 
supper  of  the  passover  is  called  "  the  Lord's  passover ; "  "^  but  it 
could  not  be  literally  the  Lord's  passover,  which  was  his  own 
personal  act ;  but  it  could  be  properly  so  named  as  it  was  the 
memorial  of  such  act.  As  the  sacramental  rites  of  circumcision  and 
the  passover  received  the  names  of  the  things  which  they  repre- 
sented, so  the  bread  and  wine,  as  the  divinely  appointed  symbols  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  were  properly  so  named.  This  inter- 
1  Gen.  xvii,  10,  13.  "^  Exod.  xii,  11.     . 


414  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

pretation  is  simple  and  natural,  and  free  from  the  insuperable 
difficulties  of  a  literal  sense. 

The  bread  and  wine  are  not  changed  into  the  form  of  flesh  and 
NO  TRANsuB-  blood.  Aftcr  the  words  of  consecration  they  are  still 
sTANTiATioN,  brcad  and  wine,  just  as  they  were  before.  For  sense- 
perception  and  the  tests  of  chemistry  they  are  the  very  same. 
Against  such  proof  it  is  idle  to  appeal  to  an  opposing  authority  of 
the  divine  word,  because  there  is  no  such  contrary  word  in  the  case. 

The  transubstantiation  maintained  involves  an  absolute  impossi- 
AN  iMPossi-  bility.  Granted,  that  God  could  change  the  bread  and 
BiLiTT.  -vvine  into  flesh  and  blood  ;  but  this  is  only  a  part  of  the 

doctrine.  The  whole  doctrine  is  that  they  are  changed  into  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ.  Herein  lies  the  impossibility.  That 
which  never  has  incorporation  into  the  body  of  Christ  never  can  be 
his  flesh  and  blood.  There  is  no  power  even  in  God  to  make  it 
such.  Indeed,  the  very  notion  of  it  implies  a  contradiction,  and, 
therefore,  an  absolute  impossibility.  And,  surely,  it  will  not  be 
pretended  that  the  bread  and  wine  consecrated  in  the  sacrament  are 
actually  incorporated  into  the  body  of  Christ.  We  need  no  further 
refutation  of  such  a  doctrine. 

The  true  nature  of  the  supper  is  given  in  our  own  article  of 
TRUE  NATURE  rcllgion  '.  "  Thc  body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken,  and 
OF  THE  SUPPER.  qqXqu  lu  thc  suppcr,  only  after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual 
manner.  And  the  means  whereby  the  body  of  Christ  is  received 
and  eaten  in  the  supper  is  faith."' 

3.  Factitious  Sacraments. — Only  the  divine  agency  can  institute 
a  truly  religious  sacrament.  There  are  only  two  such  in  the 
Christian  Church  :  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  additional 
five  of  Romanism  are  without  divine  authority,  and  therefore  are 
purely  factitious.  They  are  formally  repudiated  in  one  of  our 
articles  :  "  Those  five  commonly  called  sacraments,  that  is  to  say, 
confirmation,  penance,  orders,  matrimony,  and  extreme  unction, 
are  not  to  be  counted  for  sacraments  of  the  Gospel ;  being  such  as 
have  partly  grown  out  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the  apostles,  and 
partly  are  states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures,  but  yet  have  not 
the  like  nature  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  they  have 
not  any  visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God."" 

Augsburg  Confession,  part  i,  article  x ;  Formula  of  Concord,  Epitome, 
article  vii ;  Krauth :  The  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theology,  The 
Lord's  Supper ;  Schmid :  Doctrinal  Theology  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church,  part  iv,  chap,  ii ;  Nevin  :  The  Mystical  Union  ;  Council  of  Trent,  13th. 
Session,  canons  i-xi ;    Moehler  :  Symbolism,  book  i,  part  i,  chap,  iv  ;  Capel : 

'  Article  xviii.  '  Article  xvi. 


THE  CHURCH.  415 

The  Faith  of  Catholics,  vol.  ii,  pp.  375-499  ;  Vogan  :  True  Doctrine  of  the 
EuchaHst ;  Bickersteth  :  The  Lorcfs  Supiyer ;  Calvin:  Institutes,  book  iv, 
chaps,  xvii-xix  ;  Dorner :  Syston  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  iv,  pp.  305-333  ; 
Armstrong  :  The  Sacraments  of  the  Neiv  Testament ;  Luckey  :  The  Lord's  Sup- 
per ;  Clarke  :  TJie  Eucharist;  Elliott :  Roman  Catholicism,  book  ii. 

IV.  Constitution  of  the  Chukcii. 

1.  Laity  and  Ministry. — There  is  in  Cliristianity  a  priesthood  of 
the  people.  Such  is  the  clear  sense  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  the  fact 
is  commonly  recognized  by  the  Protestant  Churches.  The  mean- 
ing of  this  priesthood  is,  not  that  Christian  people  are  priests  in 
any  strict  sense  of  the  term,  but  that  they  have  the  privilege  of 
access  to  God,  and  of  receiving  his  blessing  without  the  mediation 
of  any  human  priest.  This  fact,  however,  does  not  j^  ministerial 
supersede  the  requirement  of  a  ministerial  class  in  the  class. 
Church.  There  are  many  religious  services  which  cannot  be  ren- 
dered in  an  orderly  and  profitable  manner  without  such  a  class. 
Every  religion  has  a  ministry.  In  Judaism  there  was  a  divinely 
appointed  order  for  conducting  the  religious  services.  In  the  found- 
ing of  Christianity  our  Lord  instituted  a  ministry,  and  clearly  with 
the  purpose  of  its  perpetuation  in  the  Church.  "And  he  gave 
some,  apostles ;  and  some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ;  and 
some,  pastors  and  teachers  ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ."' 
The  functions  of  the  ministry  must  ever  constitute  it  a  distinct 
class  in  the  Christian  Church.  The  divine  vocation  of  those  who 
are  properly  admitted  to  this  sacred  office  must  itself  determine 
such  distinction. 

2.  Divine  Vocation  of  the  Ministry. — Mental  gifts  and  acquire- 
«ients,  refinements  of  culture,  and  the  power  of  persuasive  speech 
are  of  great  value  in  the  work  of  the  ministry,  but  cannot  in  them- 
selves warrant  the  assumption  of  its  sacred  duties.  Neither  is  deep 
and  earnest  piety  such  a  warrant,  though  indispensable  to  the  best 
ministerial  service.  A  glowing  zeal  for  the  cause  of  Christ  and  the 
salvation  of  souls  should  always  possess  the  mind  of  a  minister  of 
the  Gospel ;  yet  such  a  zeal  is  possible,  and  often  actual,  without 
this  special  divine  vocation  ;  so  that,  while  the  lack  of  such  zeal 
should  discredit  the  profession  of  such  a  call,  its  possession  should 
not  in  itself  be  accepted  as  the  proof  thereof. 

The  idea  of  a  divine  call  to  the  office  of  the  ministry  is  most  rea- 
sonable.    The  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  with  the  pas-  a  reasonable 
toral  care  which  belongs  to  the  office  of  the  ministry,   ^^^■''■ 
is  the   divinely  instituted   means  for   the  conversion  of  sinners 

•  Eph.  iv,  11,  12. 


416  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

and  the  spiritual  edification  of  believers.  It  is,  therefore,  most 
reasonable  that  God  should  select  his  own  agents,  and  specially  call 
them  into  his  service.  It  is  not  a  case  in  which  the  securing  of  the 
necessary  service  could  be  wisely  left  either  to  the  option  of  indi- 
viduals or  to  the  selection  of  the  Church.  The  divine  call  means  a 
far  better  service  than  could  otherwise  be  obtained.  God  knows 
best  who  will  best  serve  him  in  this  ministry.  Further,  the  fact  of 
a  divine  call  is  itself  an  element  of  value  in  this  service.  Whoever 
ascends  the  pulpit  with  the  conscious  obligation  and  sanction  of 
such  a  call  ascends  it  with  far  greater  strength  than  could  else  be 
possible  to  him.  The  recognition  of  such  a  call  of  the  minister  on 
the  part  of  the  people  elicits  a  peculiar  interest  and  secures  for  his 
words  a  weight  of  influence  not  otherwise  practicable. 

There  is  such  a  call.  Under  the  Jewish  economy  a  particular  fam- 
ily and  tribe  were  divinely  set  apart  to  the  priestly  office.  The 
FACT  OF  THE  prophcts  wcrc  individually  called  of  God  into  the  office 
CALL.  which  they  fulfilled — an  office  more  definitely  represent- 

ative of  the  Christian  ministry  than  that  of  the  priesthood.  Our 
Lord  selected  his  own  apostles  and  divinely  commissioned  them  to 
their  great  work.  When  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  apostasy  of 
Judas  was  to  be  filled  the  apostles  prayed  and  cast  lots  that  they 
might  know  whom  the  Lord  chose  in  his  place. '  Again,  when  the 
vast  harvests,  already  ripe  for  the  sickle,  spread  out  before  the 
few  reapers,  what  was  our  Lord's  instruction  to  them  ?  "  Pray  ye 
therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he  will  send  forth  laborers 
into  his  harvest."  ^  The  divine  vocation  of  the  ministry  is  the  one 
specially  divine  fact  in  its  constitution,  and  the  one  which  the 
Church  should  most  tenaciously  hold.  No  question  of  orders  or 
ordination  has  any  such  concern. 

3.  Ecclesiastical  Polity. — The  questions  of  ecclesiastical  polity 
have  been  largely  discussed.  The  actual  forms  of  such  polity,  as 
representing  the  different  theories,  run  through  the  whole  scale 
from  the  simplest  Congregationalism  up  to  the  Papacy.  Theories 
are  often  maintained  on  the  assumption  of  a  divinely  ordered  polity  ; 
but  there  is  no  such  polity ;  consequently  such  discussions  are 
groundless.  The  question  of  chief  importance  is  the  adaptation  of 
the  polity  to  the  attainment  of  the  spiritual  ends  for 

QUESTION  OF  ^  -^  ^ 

CHIEF  iM-  which  the  Church  is  constituted.  This  should  always 
poRTANCE.  y^^  ^  determining  principle.  The  principle  means  that 
the  construction  of  a  polity  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Church ;  but  it  also  means  that  the  construction  must  be  made 
in  the  light  of  her  mission,  and  with  a  view  to  its  very  best 
1  Acts  i,  23-26.  ^  j^att.  ix,  38. 


THE  CHURCH.  417 

accomplishment.     The  polity  which  answers  to  such  end  is  easily 
vindicated. 

The  discretionary  power  of  the  Church,  as  above  stated,  ap- 
pears in  the  light  of  three  facts  :  the  Church  must  have  a  polity  ; 
there    is    no    divinely    ordered    polity  ;    consequently 

1  »/         TIIRKE  FACl'S 

it  is  left  to  the  Church,  and  to   each  Church    right- 
fully  existing  as   such,    to  determine  her  own   polity.     A   brief 
presentation  of  these  points  will  comprise  about  all  that  we  need 
further  say. 

Any  society  formed  for  the  accomplishment  of  certain  purposes 
requires  some  provisions  of  government,  without  which  it  could 
not  even  subsist,  much  less  attain  the  ends  of  its  for-  ^  polity  nec-* 
mation.  **  It  seems  to  belong  to  the  very  essence  of  essary. 
a  community,  that  it  should  have  :  (1)  officers  of  some  kind  ;  (2) 
rules  enforced  by  some  kind  of  penalties ;  and  (3)  some  power  of 
admitting  and  excluding  persons  as  members." '  So  much  is  neces- 
sary to  the  existence  of  any  community  or  society  constituted  for 
the  accomplishment  of  definite  ends  ;  and  so  much  is  necessary  to 
the  existence  of  a  Church.  Hence,  after  a  lucid  presentation  of 
the  three  points  named,  Whately  concludes  :  "  Since,  therefore,  this 
point,  and  also  those  others  above  mentioned,  seem,  naturally  and 
necessarily,  to  belong  to  every  regular  community  ;  since  it  must, 
in  short,  consist  of  regularly  constituted  members,  subject  to  certain 
rules,  and  having  certain  offices  it  follows  that  whoever  directs  or 
sanctions  the  establishment  of  a  community  (as  our  Lord  certainly 
did  in  respect  of  Christian  Churches)  must  be  understood  as  thereby 
sanctioning  those  institutions  which  belong  to  the  essence  of  a  com- 
munity. To  recognize  a  community  as  actually  having  a  legiti- 
mate existence,  or  as  allowably  to  be  formed,  is  to  recognize  it  as 
having  officers,  as  having  regulations  enforced  by  certain  penalties, 
and  as  admitting  or  refusing  to  admit  metnhers."  ^  The  points 
thus  made  comprise  only  a  minimum  of  what  is  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  even  a  local  church.  Much  more  is  required  when 
many  such  are  united  under  a  common  government.  In  such  case 
there  must  be  constitutional  provisions  whereby  the  stability  of 
the  Church  may  be  secured  and  the  rights  of  its  ministers  and  mem- 
bers protected.  Also  there  must  be  provided  the  legislative,  ju- 
dicial, and  executive  offices  necessary  to  the  proper  government  of 
a  Church  so  constituted. 

There  is  no  divinely  ordered  polity.     No  existing  Church  can 
show    the  original  of  its  own  form  of  government  in  the  !N"ew 
Testament.      It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  organic  union 
•  Whately  :    The  Kingdom  of  Christ,  pp.  63,  64.  » Ibid.,  pp.  66,  67. 


418  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

of  the  local  churches  in  apostolic  times ;  yet  the  superintendency 
of  the  apostles  was  both  a  governing  power  over  them 
INSTITUTED  and  a  bond  of  union  between  them  ;  so  that  they  were 
pouTY.  neither  Congregational  in  polity,  nor  yet  organized  and 

governed  in  such  manner  as,  for  instance,  the  Presbyterian,  Protest- 
ant Episcopal,  or  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  would  be  utterly 
vain  for  any  one  of  these  Churches,  as  it  would  be  for  any  other,  to 
assume  that  its  own  government  was  fashioned  after  a  divine  pat- 
tern. The  fact  that  no  discovery  of  a  divinely  ordered  polity  has 
ever  been  made  proves  beyond  question  that  there  is  none. 

The  truth  of  our  third  point  is  clearly  consequent  to  the  truth  of 
THE  WORK  OF  ^^^^  ^^'^^  ^wo.  If  a  pollty  is  necessary  to  the  constitution 
THE  CHURCH,  a^d  work  of  the  Church,  and  none  is  divinely  ordered, 
then  it  must  be  the  right  of  the  Church,  and  of  every  Church  hav- 
ing a  legitimate  existence,  to  determine  the  form  of  her  own  gov- 
ernment ;  but  ever  with  a  view  to  the  best  accomplishment  of  her 
divine  mission. 

Certain  facts  which  have  special  significance  for  this  question 
SIGNIFICANT  ^^^  clcarly  observable  uj)on  the  face  of  the  New  Testa- 
FACTs.  ment.     "  It  is  j^lainly  recorded  that  they — the  apostles 

— did  establish  churches  wherever  they  introduced  the  Gospel ; 
that  they  '  ordained  elders  in  every  city  ; '  and  that  the  apostles 
again  delegated  that  office  to  others  ;  that  they  did  administer  the 
rite  of  baptism  to  their  converts ;  and  that  they  celebrated  the 
communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And,  besides  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  Christian  faith  and  morality  which  they  sedulously  set 
forth,  they  have  recorded  the  most  earnest  exhortations  to  avoid 
'  confusion  *  in  their  public  worship  ;  to  do  *  all  things  decently  and 
in  order  ;  *  to  'let  all  things  be  done  to  edifying,'  and  not  for  vain- 
glorious display  ;  they  inculcate  the  duty  of  Christians  '  assembling 
themselves  together '  for  joint  worship  ;  they  record  distinctly  the 
solemn  sanction  given  to  a  Christian  community ;  they  inculcate 
due  reverence  and  obedience  to  those  that  '  bear  rule '  in  such  a 
community,  with  censure  of  such  as  '  walk  disorderly '  and  '  cause 
divisions  ; '  and  they  dwell  earnestly  on  the  care  with  which  Chris- 
tian ministers,  both  male  and  female,  should  be  selected,  and  on 
the  zeal,  and  discretion,  and  blameless  life  required  in  them,  and  on 
their  solemn  obligation  to  '  exhort,  rebuke,  and  admonish  ; '  yet 
with  all  this  they  do  not  record  even  the  number  of  distinct  orders 
ONLY  PRiNci-  of  them,  or  the  functions  appropriated  to  each,  or  the 
PLEs  GIVEN.  degree,  and  kind,  and  mode  of  control  they  exercised  in 
the  churches.  While  the  principles,  in  short,  are  clearly  recog- 
nized, and  strongly  inculcated,  which  Christian  communities  and 


THE  CHURCH.  419 

iudividual  members  of  them  are  to  keep  in  mind  and  act  upon,  with 
a  view  to  the  great  objects  for  which  these  communities  were  estab- 
lished, the  precise  modes  in  which  tliese  objects  are,  in  each  case,  to 
be  promoted,  are  left — one  can  hardly  doubt,  studiously  left — unde- 
fined/" In  view  of  such  facts,  and  others  like  them,  the  same 
author  elsewhere  concludes  :  "  Thus  a  further  confirmation  is  fur- 
nished of  the  view  that  has  been  taken;  namely,  that  it  was  the 
plan  of  the  sacred,  writers  to  lay  dow^u  clearly  the  principles  on 
which  Christian  Churches  were  to  be  formed  and  governed,  leaving 
the  mode  of  application  of  those  principles  undetermined  and 
discretionary."' 

On  the  ground  of  the  unquestionable  facts  and  principles  above 
set  forth  the  organization  of  our  Methodist  Societies,  of  1784,  into 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  form  of  her  polity,  and  the 
institution  of  her  ministerial  orders  are  easily  vindicated. 

Bannerman  :  The  Church  of  Christ ;  Cunningham :  Discussion  of  Church 
Princijiles  ;  Palmer  :  Treatise  on  the  Church  of  Christ ;  Whately  :  The  Kingdom 
of  Christ ;  Binnie:  The  Church;  Hodge:  Church  Polity;  Morris:  Ecclesiology ; 
Emory:  Defence  of  Our  Fathers;  Bangs:  An  Original  Church  of  Chtnst ; 
Stevens:  Church  Polity  ;  Perrine  :  Pinnciples  of  Church  Government ;  Neely  : 
Evolution  of  Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism  ;  Harrison  :  The  High  Church- 
man Disarmed :  A  Defence  of  Our  Methodist  Fathers. 

>  Whately :  The  Kingdom  of  Christ,  pp.  89-91.  *  Ibid.,  p.  98. 


PART   VI. 

ESC  HATO  LOGY. 


E^CHATTOLOOY. 


I 


EsCHATOLOGY  is  the  doctrine  of  the  last  things,  and  comprises 
the  questions  respecting  the  intermediate  state,  the  second  advent, 
the  resurrection,  the  judgment,  and  the  destinies  of  the  evil  and 
the  good.  Underlying  these  questions,  however,  is  the  deeper  one 
of  a  future  existence,  without  the  truth  of  which  they  have  for  us 
no  interest — indeed,  no  reality — but  with  the  truth  of  which  they 
have  for  us  the  deepest  concern.  In  view  of  such  facts  it  is  proper, 
first  of  all,  to  consider  the  question  of  a  future  existence. 

CHAPTER   I. 

FUTURE   EXISTENCE. 

The  doctrine  of  a  future  existence  properly  includes  two  ques- 
tions :  one  respecting  the  spirituality  of  mind  ;  the  other  respecting 
its  immortality.  The  relation  of  the  former  to  the  latter  will  ap- 
pear in  the  discussion. 

I.  The  Spikituality  of  Mii^d. 

So  much  was  said  upon  this  question  in  our  anthropological  ar- 
gument for  the  truth  of  theism  that  the  less  is  here  required. 

1.  Falsity  of  Materialism. — Materialism  is  an  unprovable  hy- 
pothesis. It  is  such  because,  in  order  to  the  proof,  it  materialism 
must  be  shown,  not  only  that  mental  facts  have  an  ade-  unprovable. 
quate  ground  in  matter,  but  also  that  they  have  their  actual  source 
in  matter.  Neither  is  a  possibility.  We  have  no  empirical  knowl- 
edge of  matter  as  a  substantive  reality.  On  the  observation  of 
its  properties  or  phenomena  our  reason  affirms  it  to  be  such  a  real- 
ity. But  materialism  can  admit  no  such  form  of  reason.  Its 
purely  empirical  philosophy  limits  knowledge  to  the  mere  surface 
of  things.  It  deals  with  phenomena,  and  can  know  nothing  deeper. 
Hence  it  cannot  even  affirm  the  reality  of  matter ;  much  less, 
discover  therein  the  adequate  ground  of  mental  facts.  Nor  can  it 
show  that  such  facts  spring  from  matter.  It  may  be  shown  that 
certain  actions  of  the  brain  or  sensory  nerves  are  coincident  with 
certain  mental  activities  ;  but  not  the  slightest  proof  could  thus  be 


424  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

furnished  that  the  former  are  the  cause  of  the  latter  ;  not  any  more, 
indeed,  than  that  the  latter  are  the  cause  of  the  former.  Such  co 
incidence  cannot  be  made  to  mean  any  thing  more  than  a  present 
conditioning  relation  of  the  nervous  organism  to  such  mental  activi- 
ties ;  but  such  relation  is  utterly  short  of  being  their  ground.  A 
spiritual  nature  in  man  is  the  only  adequate  ground  of  mental  facts. 
That  its  presence  cannot  be  discovered  in  any  empirical  way  is  no 
proof  against  its  existence. 

The  scientific  definitions  of  matter  and  mind  give  us  two  distinct 
TWO  SETS  OF  ^^^  widely  different  sets  of  facts  :  the  physical  and  the 
FACTS.  mental.     Their  difference  is  so  real  and  deep  that  they 

must  have  essentially  different  grounds.  Otherwise,  we  might 
interchange  their  definitions  or  use  either  for  both.  Materialism 
assumes  this  right.  "  In  itself  it  is  of  little  moment  whether  we 
express  the  phenomena  of  matter  in  the  terms  of  spirit,  or  the 
phenomena  of  spirit  in  the  terms  of  matter  :  matter  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  form  of  thought,  thought  may  be  regarded  as  a  prop- 
erty of  matter — each  statement  has  a  certain  relative  truth.  But 
STRAIT  OF  with  a  view  to  the  progress  of  science,  the  materialistic 
MATERIALISM,  tcrmiuology  is  in  every  way  to  be  preferred."'  Mate- 
rialism is  constrained  to  assume  all  this.  That  it  is  so  constrained  is 
conclusive  of  its  falsity.  The  phenomena  of  matter  cannot  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  terms  of  spirit ;  neither  can  the  phenomena  of  spirit 
be  expressed  in  the  terms  of  matter.  To  attempt  it  is  to  ignore  all 
the  laws  of  scientific  definition.  Materialism  is  constrained,  as  ap- 
pears in  the  above  citation,  to  prefer  the  materialistic  terminology, 
and  thus  to  dismiss  all  terms  expressive  of  the  activities  of  mind  in 
the  forms  of  thought,  sensibility,  and  volition.  All  must  be  reduced 
to  the  physical  plane,  and  expressed  in  the  terms  of  matter.  Such 
necessity  is  quite  conclusive  of  the  falsity  of  materialism. 

Materialism  cannot  account  for  the  facts  of  mind.  Any  attempt 
NO  ACCOUNT  to  render  such  account  must  proceed  either  on  the 
FACTs^^^N  ground  of  the  ultimate  particles  of  matter  or  on  some 
MATTER.  form  of  their  combination.     In  the  light  of  reason  it  is 

not  possible  that  the  primary  atoms,  as  discrete  entities,  should  be 
the  original  of  mental  facts.  The  possibility  would  mean  either  a 
distribution  of  the  mental  powers  to  as  many  separate  atoms,  or 
that  one  atom  should  possess  the  wealth  of  a  mind.  Neither  is 
possible.  With  such  a  distribution  of  the  faculties  there  could  be 
no  unity  of  action  between  them,  and  hence  no  mental  life ;  for 
such  a  life  is  possible  only  with  the  element  of  unity.  That 
a  single  atom  cannot  be  the  seat  of  a  complete  set  of  mental 
*  Huxley  :  Lay  Sermons,  pp.  145,  146. 


FUTURE  EXISTENCE.  425 

faculties  needs  only  to  be  stated.  No  assumption  of  such  a  pos- 
sibility needs  any  further  refutation.  The  combinations  of  the 
atoms,  whether  in  cohesive,  chemical,  or  organic  forms,  can  origi- 
nate no  new  powers,  whatever  powers  previously  latent  may  thus 
find  the  conditions  of  their  activity.  But  to  say  that  mental 
powers  thus  find  the  condition  of  their  action  is  to  assume  their 
prior  existence  in  the  atoms.  Hence  materialism,  in  attempting  to 
account  for  the  facts  of  mind  on  the  ground  of  matter,  is  forced 
back  to  the  impossible  alternatives  previously  noted  :  either  that 
the  powers  of  the  mind  must  exist  distributively  in  an  equal  num- 
ber of  atoms,  or  that  all  must  exist  in  one  atom.  The  absolute 
impossibility  of  accounting  for  the  facts  of  mind  on  the  ground  of 
matter  is  conclusive  of  the  falsity  of  materialism. 

2.  Truth  of  Spirit iiality. — The  materialist  must  face  the  reality 
of  mental  facts.  That  we  think  and  reason  ;  that  we  certainty  ok 
have  sensibilities  which  are  active,  not  only  in  the  secu-  mental  FACTf. 
lar  relations  of  life,  but  also  in  moral  and  religious  forms  ;  that  we 
freely  determine  the  ends  of  our  action  and  voluntarily  work  for 
their  attainment,  are  as  real  and  certain  as  the  properties  of  matter 
or  the  forces  operative  in  physical  nature.  If  the  properties  of 
body  mean  a  substantive  matter,  our  mental  facts  mean  a  spiritual 
mind.  Their  only  sufficient  ground  is  in  such  a  mind.  We  saw 
elsewhere  the  perplexities  of  materialists  at  this  point ;  how  they 
confessed  the  impossibility  of  materialistic  evolution,  indeed,  de- 
clared the  utter  absurdity  of  the  theory,  on  the  ground  of  the 
traditional  doctrine  of  matter.  It  was  openly  conceded  that  only 
a  new  definition  of  matter,  which  should  include  mental  facts  as 
well  as  the  physical,  could  render  the  theory  possible  or  even  toler- 
able.    But  matter  is  not  changed  by  any  new  defini-     „„,„„„    .„„ 

**  •/  T7SELESS     N  K  W 

tion  ;  its  properties  remain  the  very  same.  Defining  definition  of 
matter  in  the  terms  of  spirit  does  not  make  it  spiritual  "^"^'*- 
or  invest  it  with  any  of  the  properties  of  spirit.  There  is  still  the 
same  contradictory  opposition  of  the  two  sets  of  facts  ;  so  that  the 
two  cannot  combine  in  the  same  ground.  And  it  is  still  true  that, 
if  physical  properties  mean  a  substantive  matter  as  their  ground, 
mental  facts  mean  a  substantive  spirit  as  their  ground.  Indeed, 
the  proof  of  a  spiritual  mind  in  man  is  just  as  clear  and  sure  as  the 
proof  of  a  substantive  matter  in  the  physical  universe. 

In  the  continuity  of  consciousness  the  personal  self  ever  abides 
as  the  self-conscious  subject.     I  am  personally  the  same    continuity 
in  the  experiences  of  to-day  that  I  was  in  the  experi-    of  self-con- 
ences  of  ten,  twenty,  or  fifty  years  ago.     In  the  light 

of  consciousness  nothing  is  more  certain   to  me  than   this  fact. 
29  " 


I 


426  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Such  is  the  certainty  of  every  mau  respecting  himself,  as  he  gathers 
up  in  memory  the  experiences  of  his  past  life.  No  length  of  life 
nor  changes  of  experience,  however  extreme,  can  in  the  least  affect 
his  certainty.  That  the  personal  ego  ever  abides  as  the  self- 
conscious  subject  of  the  experiences  of  the  longest  life  is  a  fact 
NO  GROUND  IN  whlcli  uo  subtlcty  can  disturb.  But  it  is  a  fact  which 
MATERIALISM,  gau  havc  no  possible  ground  in  materialism.  The 
reason  is  obvious.  Matter  in  the  bodily  organism  of  man,  just  as 
in  every  other  form,  is  in  perpetual  flux  and  change.  Not  an 
atom  of  a  present  human  brain  will  remain  in  it  a  few  years  hence. 
Thus  in  the  progress  of  a  long  life  many  complete  changes  occur. 
With  such  changes  the  continuity  of  self-consciousness  would  be 
absolutely  impossible  on  the  ground  of  materialism.  Spiritual 
mind,  ever  abiding  in  simple  unity  of  essence,  is  the  only  possible 
ground  of  such  consciousness.  The  fact  of  such  consciousness  is, 
therefore,  conclusive  of  a  spiritvial  mind  in  man. 

3.  Tlie  View  of  Scripture. — The  Scriptures  very  clearly  distin- 
guish between  the  soul  and  the  body,  and  as  clearly  mean  the 
spirituality  of  the  former.  Such  is  the  case  in  the  account  of  the 
creation  of  man.  Nothing  less  can  be  the  meaning  of  his  creation 
in  the  image  of  God.'  There  is  no  possible  ground  of  a  likeness 
to  God  in  any  creature  without  a  spiritual  nature.  The  account 
further  is  that  God  formed  the  body  of  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  whereon 
he  became  a  living  soul."  That  inbreathing  means  the  creative 
act  of  God  whereby  he  gave  existence  to  the  spiritual  nature  of 
man.  "  But  there  is  a  spirit  in  man  :  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
Almighty  giveth  them  understanding.'^'  Other  words  are  even 
more  explicit :  "  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was  : 
and  the  spirit  shall  retiirn  unto  God  who  gave  it.''  *  The  addition 
of  one  more  text  may  here  sufl&ce :  "  And  they  stoned  Stephen, 
calling  upon  God,  and  saying.  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit."' 

II.  The  Immortality  of  Mind. 
1.  Spirituality  as  Proof  of  Immortality. — The  argument  from 
the  simple  spiritual  unity  of  mind,  once  so  much  relied  on  as  a 
proof  of  immortality,  is  now  reckoned  of  far  less  weight.  It  is  not 
of  much  weight  as  direct  proof ;  for  the  dependence  of  the  mind, 
as  of  every  other  creaturely  existence,  upon  God  requires  that  the 
question  of  its  immortality  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  his  purpose 
respecting  it.     With  such  dependence  upon  God,  in  whom  we  live, 

»  Gen.  i,  36,  27.  «  Qen.  ii,  7.  ^  job  xxxii,  8. 

*  Eccles.  xii,  7.  *  Acts  vii,  59. 


FUTURE  EXISTENCE.  427 

and  move,  and  have  our  being,'  there  is  for  us  no  immortality  with- 
out his  pleasure.  Indirectly,  however,  the  nature  of  indirect 
the  mind  means  much  for  its  immortality.  As  a  simple  proof. 
spiritual  existence  it  is  not  subject  to  dissolution  or  death  in  the 
manner  of  compound  or  organic  existences.  Nothing  in  any  such 
instance  of  dissolution  or  death  can  exemplify  the  extinction  of  the 
soul  of  man.  Its  extinction  must  be  a  virtual  annihilation  ;  and 
there  is  no  natural  evidence  of  such  a  destiny  of  the  soul,  but 
much  against  it.  Only  the  clearest  evidence  that  such  is  the  di- 
vine pleasure  could  warrant  the  belief  of  it. 

2.  A  Question  of  the  Divine  Purpose. — As  the  soul  is  naturally 
free  from  the  common  laws  of  dissolution  and  death,  it  may  sur- 
vive the  body  and  exist  in  a  future  state.  There  is  much  natural 
evidence  that  it  will ;  but  as  its  very  existence  is  dependent  upon 
God,  so,  as  we  have  seen,  the  question  of  its  immortality  can  be  deter- 
mined only  in  view  of  the  evidences  of  his  pleasure  respecting  it. 

3.  Evidences  of  the  Divine  Purpose. — The  further  question  then 
is.  What  are  the  evidences  of  the  divine  purpose  respecting  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  ?  These  evidences  lie  partly  in  the  endow- 
ments of  the  soul ;  pre-eminently  in  the  economy  of  redemption. 

God  is  the  original  of  the  soul,  and  of  the  intellectual  powers  with 
which  it  is  endowed.  Hence  it  is  reasonable  to  think  intellectual 
that  he  intends  for  it  the  opportunity  of  a  development  faculties. 
and  attainment  commensurate  with  its  powers  ;  indeed,  it  is  unrea- 
sonable to  think  the  contrary  ;  for  without  such  opportunity  these 
powers  can  have  no  proper  end  in  the  plan  of  creation  and  provi- 
dence. But  the  present  life  affords  no  such  opportunity.  Herein 
the  most  favored  can  only  begin  that  intellectual  life  of  which  we 
are  capable.  With  the  many  there  is  hardly  a  beginning.  When 
will  it  be  otherwise  ?  The  higher  education  of  the  masses  is  a  re- 
mote futurity,  with  little  promise  in  it.  Our  civilization  is  largely 
in  an  earthly  plane,  and  imperatively  demands  much  labor  in  which 
brawn  has  a  much  larger  part  than  brain.  Surely  there  is  in  the 
purpose  of  God  a  sphere  of  better  opportunities  for  the  intellectual 
life  of  man  than  the  present  life  affords  ;  a  sphere  which  can  be 
complete  only  with  an  immortal  existence. 

The  soul  is  morally  constituted  and  subject  to  the  law  of  duty 
and  responsibility.  No  life  ever  attains  a  degree  of  per-  moral  en- 
fection  above  such  obligation  :  so  high  and  exacting  uowmexts, 
is  this  law.  If  it  should  follow  that  there  is  no  perfect  life,  it 
may  be  for  the  reason  that  in  our  present  state  duty  is  beset  with 
severe  trials.     Many  strive  after  such  a  life,  strive  earnestly  and 

'  Acts  xvii,  28. 


428  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

persistently,  and  through  great  sacrifice  and  the  loftiest  moral  hero- 
ism reach  a  high  state  of  virtue.  They  come  to  the  end  of  life  in 
possession  of  the  divinest  graces.  Shall  such  attainments  perish  in 
death  ?  Shall  the  unyielding  fidelity,  the  enduring  fortitude,  the 
conquering  heroism,  the  pure  flame  of  love,  the  charity  which 
makes  glad  the  heart  of  many,  the  graces  which  bless  the  vision  of 
angels  and  merit  the  benediction  of  God — shall  all  these  perish  in 
the  hour  of  death  ?  No  :  reason  and  religion,  the  character  of 
God  and  the  interests  of  the  moral  universe,  answer.  No.  There 
must  be  another  life  in  which  such  graces  shall  still  live,  and  such 
souls  receive  the  reward  of  the  heavenly  Father,  who  is  not  un- 
righteous to  forget  their  work  and  labor  of  love.' 

Even  the  fact  of  sin  points  to  a  future  existence.     Sin  itself  wit- 
nesses to  the  high  grade  of  our  endowments,  and  to 

FACT  OF  SIN  o         cj 

the  sacredness  of  our  moral  obligations.  The  conscious- 
ness of  sin  is  anticipative  of  a  future  state  of  retribution.  The 
many  instances  of  unpunished  sin  in  the  present  life  unerringly 
point  to  such  a  future  state.  The  divine  equity  confirms  the  an- 
ticipation of  the  awakened  conscience. 

It  may  be  said,  in  the  way  of  objection  to  the  views  above  pre- 
NOTicE  OF  AN  scutcd,  that  in  the  light  of  Scripture  a  future  existence 
OBJECTION.  opens  to  the  evil  no  opportunity  for  a  perfected  intel- 
lectual and  moral  life.  This  fact,  however,  cannot  invalidate  the 
inference  of  such  an  existence  from  the  intellectual  and  moral  en- 
dowments of  the  soul,  as  above  stated.  It  is  simply  a  case  of  the 
forfeiture  of  great  opportunities.  There  is  such  a  possibility  in  our 
responsible  life.  Moral  freedom  is  inseparable  from  such  a  life  ;  and 
the  possibility  of  such  forfeiture  is  inseparable  from  our  freedom. 

The  common  aspiration  for  immortality  is  strong  and  persistent 
DESIRE  FOR  through  all  stages  and  conditions  of  life.  Nothing  can 
IMMORTALITY,  rcprcss  It  except  the  hopeless  sense  of  an  unrecoverable 
forfeiture  of  future  well-being.  The  truer  and  nobler  the  moral 
life,  the  clearer  and  wider  the  sweep  of  spiritual  vision,  the  nearer 
the  approach  to  God  and  truth,  the  closer  the  assimilation  to  the 
divine,  the  intenser  is  the  longing  for  immortality.  This  longing 
must  be  a  divine  implanting  in  the  soul,  and  hence  cannot  be  a 
delusion.     God  must  intend  its  satisfaction  in  a  future  existence. 

A  future  existence  is  the  common  faith  of  mankind.  The  notion 
of  that  existence  is  often  obscure  ;  still  it  is  everywhere  present  and 
THE  COMMON  pcrsistent.  There  must  be  a  sufiicient  reason  for  such 
FAITH.  g^  belief.     It  must  be  either  an  instinctive  faith,  or  an 

intuition  of  the  reason,  or  an  inheritance  from  an  original  revela- 

»  Heb.  vi,  10. 


FUTURE  EXISTENCE.  429 

tion.  On  no  other  ground  can  its  universality  be  explained.  But 
from  whichever,  it  must  be  from  God  in  a  manner  which  makes 
it  an  expression  of  his  purpose  of  our  immortality. 

The  value  of  faitli  in  immortality  evinces  its  objective  truth. 
We  all  need  its  practical  influence.  Society  needs  it.  value  of  the 
The  state  needs  it.  "Without  this  faith  the  motives  of  a  faith. 
true  and  good  life  are  infinitely  lowered.  The  true  worth  of  man 
departs.  There  is  no  longer  any  sphere  for  that  practical  faith 
which  may  inspire  and  sustain  any  high  endeavor  either  for  one's 
own  moral  good  or  for  the  good  of  others.  The  noblest  characters 
of  history,  the  statesmen  of  the  loftiest  patriotism,  the  philanthro- 
pists of  abounding  charities,  have  been  the  creation  of  a  faith  in 
immortality.  The  benevolent  enterprises  which  bless  so  many,  the 
charities  so  opulent  in  grateful  ministries,  have  the  same  inspiration. 
The  pre-eminent  beneficences  of  Christianity  evince  the  power  of 
this  faith.  "  Lucian,  the  universal  scoffer,  saw  in  Christianity 
only  one  of  the  numberless  follies  of  his  time.  His  mocking  spirit, 
while  contemning  all  religions,  sobered  into  candor  by  acknowledg- 
ing the  benevolence  of  the  Christians,  and  he  testifies  to  the  power 
of  their  belief  in  immortality  to  keep  them  steadfast,  and  cause 
them  to  abound  in  all  helpfulness  and  kindness."'  How  is  this  ? 
Are  we  so  constituted  that  faith  in  a  delusion  is  necessary  to  all  that 
is  truest  and  best  in  human  life  ?  It  cannot  be.  Hence  our  immor- 
tality must  be  divinely  purposed,  and  therefore  must  be  a  truth. 

There  are  few  texts  of  Scripture  in  which  our  immortality  is 
directly  asserted  ;  yet  its  truth  is  ever  present  in  both  the  yiew  of 
Testaments,  but  with  the  clearer  unfolding  in  the  scripture. 
New.'  Without  the  truth  of  immortality  the  deepest,  divinest 
verities  of  Christianity  must  be  denied.  No  place  can  remain  for  a 
divine  incarnation  in  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God,  or  for  an  atone- 
ment for  sin  in  the  voluntary  sacrifice  of  himself.  If  we  are  to 
perish  utterly  in  the  event  of  death  we  need  no  salvation  from  a 
future  wrath,  no  Saviour  who  shall  bring  us  to  future  blessedness. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  central  truths  of  our  Christian  soteriology  mean 
the  immortality  of  the  soul. 

Plato :  Phcedon,  or  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul ;  Butler :  Of  a  Future  Life, 
Analogy,  part  i,  chap,  i  ;  Addison:  Immateriality  of  the  Soul,  "Spectator," 
No.  Ill  ;  Channlng:  Immortality,  Works,  vol.  iv,  pp.  169-182;  Drew:  Imma- 
teriality and  Immortality  of  the  Human  Soul ;  Peiowne  :  Immortolity,  Hulsean 
Lectures,  1868;  Paine:  Soul  and  Instinct,  Physiologically  Distinguished  from 
Materialism;  Lee:  The  Immortality  of  the  Soul;  Nordhoff :  God  and  the 
Fx(ture  Life  ;  Foster:  Beyond  the  Grave. 

'  Bennett :  Christian  Archceology,  p.  434.  *3  Tim.  i,  10. 


430  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTEE  II. 

THE  INTERMEDIATE   STATE, 

The  question  of  an  intermediate  state  concerns  the  condition 
of  the  dead  between  death  and  the  resurrection.     There 

THE  DOCTRINE.      .  i  j.  i  .••!••  ^    •    ^ 

IS  no  place  lor  such  a  question  m  rehgions  which 
know  nothing  of  the  resurrection  or  the  judgment.  It  is  not  clear 
that  the  Jews,  particularly  in  their  earlier  history,  possessed  these 
truths  in  a  manner  to  give  them  any  definite  view  of  such  a  state. 
Such  may  have  been  the  case  with  the  specially  enlightened,  but 
DEFINITELY  could  hardly  have  been  so  with  the  mass  of  the  people. 
CHRISTIAN.  There  is,  however,  an  open  place  for  such  a  question  in 
Christianity.  As  the  resurrection  and  final  judgment  of  the  dead 
are  therein  clearly  set  forth,  so  the  state  of  souls  during  the  interval 
between  death  and  these  epochal  events  is  properly  viewed  as  an 
intermediate  state.  The  peculiarities  of  a  disembodied  existence 
of  souls  constitute  it  such  a  state. 

I.  Question  of  an  Intermediate  Place. 

This  is  the  question  whether  the  souls  of  the  dead  go  at  once  to 
the  places  of  final  destiny,  or  to  a  place  distinct  therefrom,  where 
they  remain  until  the  resurrection. 

1.  I7i  the  View  of  the  Scripttires. — We  find  no  clear  light  upon 
SHEOL  AND  ^^'^^^  subjcct  lu  thc  Old  Testament.  Therein  the  place 
HADES.  of  the  dead  is   usually  designated  by  the  term  7IKK' — 

sheol,  rendered  iidr^q — hades — in  the  Septuagint.  Hades  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament  in  much  the  same  sense  as  sheol  in  the  Old. 
In  our  version  of  the  Scriptures  both  words  are  mostly  rendered 
hell.  Sheol  means  a  dark  under- world.  In  the  popular  thought  of 
the  Jews  it  was  located  somewhere  in  or  under  the  earth,  and  was 
the  common  receptacle  of  the  dead  without  respect  to  any  distinc- 
tion of  character,  but  divided  into  two  compartments  :  one,  a  place 
of  happiness  for  the  good  ;  the  other,  a  place  of  misery  for  the 
evil.  It  is  not  clear  that  in  the  popular  thought  of  the  Jews,  par- 
ticularly in  their  earlier  history,  there  was  any  other  place  of 
future  destiny.  However,  such  a  fact  could  have  no  doctrinal  sig- 
nificance, for  they  were  not  an  inspired  people,  and  hence  could  err 


THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  431 

just  as  Christian  people  do,  and  even  more  readily,  as  they  had  a 
less  perfect  revelation.  It  need  not  be  questioned  that 
the  Old  Testament  contains  the  idea  of  a  higher  place  plack  kor 
of  destiny  for  the  good  than  sheol  represents,  nor  that  '^'"''  *'^""' 
some  minds  attained  to  this  idea ;  but  such  a  fact  is  entirely  con- 
sistent with  an  intermediate  place,  and  therefore  means  nothing 
against  it.  It  is  apparent  in  the  New  Testament,  and  quite  clear 
in  the  words  of  Josephus,'  that  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  the  Jews, 
many  of  them  at  least,  believed  in  the  resurrection  and  the  judg- 
ment, but  they  might  still  believe,  or  believe  not,  that  the  dead  re- 
mained in  an  intermediate  place  until  they  went  to  the  places  of 
final  destiny.  Hence  nothing  yet  appears  that  is  at  all  clear  or 
decisive  respecting  the  real  question  of  an  intermediate  place. 

Even  in  the  eschatology  of  the  New  Testament  we  find  nothing 
decisive  on  this  question.  Most  that  we  notice  herein  y^y^  testa- 
has  respect  to  the  good.  That  there  is  for  them  a  ment  view 
higher  place  of  destiny  than  either  sheol  or  hades  represents  is  most 
certain  ;  but  this  fact  is  entirely  consistent  with  an  intermediate 
place,  and  therefore  decides  nothing. 

The  case  of  Lazarus  seems  to  favor  the  view  of  an  intermediate 
place,  as  we  can  hardly  think  the  bosom  of  Abraham,  to  suggestive 
which  he  was  taken,  is  the  true  heaven  of  the  good.^  facts. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  to  the  dying  thief  :  "  To- 
day shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise."  ^  In  some  of  its  uses  para- 
dise has  a  lower  meaning  than  the  true  heaven  ;  besides,  Christ  did 
not  ascend  to  the  latter  on  that  day.  Other  texts,  other sio- 
however,  seem  to  favor  the  opposite  view  ;  that  is,  that  gestions. 
the  good  go  at  once  to  the  true  heaven.  In  his  dying  vision  Stephen 
saw  heaven  open,  and  Jesus  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God  ; 
and  he  died,  calling  upon  God,  and  saying,  ''  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my 
spirit."  *  The  answer  to  this  prayer  seems  to  mean  his  immediate 
reception  into  the  true  heaven.  In  the  view  of  Paul,  to  be  absent 
from  the  body  is  to  be  present  with  the  Lord  ; '  that  is,  when  the 
good  die  they  go  at  once  to  be  with  Christ.  And  as  he  is  surely  in 
the  true  heaven,  seemingly  these  words  oppose  the  view  of  an  inter- 
mediate place  for  the  good.  We  have  thus  presented  the  two  sides 
of  the  question  ;  and  so  we  leave  it  without  any  concern  for  the 
result  ;  for  it  is  without  practical  interest. 

2.  In  the  Faith  of  the  Church. — In  the  earlier  history  of  the 
Church  the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  place  was  widely  held. 
This  was  very  natural  to  the  circumstances.     On  the  other  hand, 

'  Discourse  on  Hades.  *  Luke  xvi,  23.  ^  Luke  xxiii,  43. 

*  Acts  vii,  55-60.  *  2  Cor.  v,  8. 


432  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  minds  of  both  Jewish  and   Gentile  converts  were  very  fully 

prepossessed  with  the  idea  of  the  under-world  as  the 

place  of  disembodied  spirits  ;  on  the  other,  it  was  clear 

to  them  that  the  Scriptures  reveal  a  higher  and  more  glorious  world 

as  the  place  of  blessedness  after  the  resurrection.     The  doctrine  of 

an  intermediate  place  was  the  natural  result  of  these  facts.     In 

later  times  the  Romanist  doctrine  of  purgatory  strongly  supported 

the  same  view.     But  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation 

LATER  VIEW 

rejected  it ;  and  their  strong  revolt  from  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory  probably  had  some  influence  in  the  determination  of  their 
action.  Since  then  the  Protestant  Churches  have  mostly  rejected 
the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  place. 

II.  A  State  of  Conscious  Existence. 

1.  The  Common  Christian  Faith. — That  the  intermediate  state  is 
one  of  conscious  existence  has  been  the  common  Christian  faith. 
Exceptions  have  been  so  rare  that  they  scarcely  require  notice.  It 
is  difficult  to  see  how  there  could  be  any  in  the  case  of  such  as  ac- 
cept the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  :  so  clear  is  their  testimony  to 
the  truth  of  such  an  existence. 

At  the  present  time,  however,  some  maintain  the  cessation 
AN  OPPOSING  of  our  personal  existence  in  the  event  of  death. 
VIEW.  Many  of  the  advocates  of  this  view   are  materialists, 

and  maintain  their  doctrine  on  materialistic  ground.  On  such 
ground  we  are  held  to  be  naturally  mortal  in  our  whole  being ; 
hence  an  extinction  of  our  j)ersonal  or  conscious  life  is  the  imme- 
diate consequence  of  death.  It  follows  that  the  future  life  which 
the  Scriptures  reveal  is  the  gift  of  God  through  Christ.  Such  it 
is,  not  only  as  a  state  of  blessedness,  but  also  as  a  conscious  ex- 
istence. But  this  gift  is  denied  to  the  wicked  ;  therefore  there  is 
for  them  no  future  existence.  Such  as  hold  the  resurrection  of 
the  wicked  equally  deny  their  immortality.  The  view  is  that 
they  are  raised  up,  not  for  an  abiding  existence,  but  for  a  speedy 
doom  of  annihilation.  The  doctrine  is  maintained  in  opposition  to 
the  doctrine  of  future  punishment. 

We  have  already  shown  the  falsity  of  materialism,  and  therefore 
ON  FALSE  need  no  further  refutation  of  this  doctrine,  so  far  as  it 

GROUNDS.  is  based  on  such  ground.     And  so  far  as  it  assumes  the 

support  of  the  Scriptures  it  is  easily  refuted  by  a  presentation  of 
texts  which  clearly  mean  the  consciousness  of  the  soul  in  the  inter- 
mediate state. 

2.  Tlie  Clear  Sense  of  Scri])ture. — We  first  adduce  a  few  texts 
from  the  Old  Testament  in  support  of  the  view  here  maintained. 


THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  433 

Here  are  the  words  of  God  to  Moses  :  ''  I  am  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham, the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob."'     He       ,„^„..^,„ 

IN  THfc.  OLD 

says,  not  that  I  was  their  God  when  they  were  living,  testament. 
nor  that  I  shall  be  such  after  their  resurrection,  but,  I  am  their 
God.  Such,  however,  he  could  not  be  if  they  were  out 
of  conscious  existence.  An  unconscious  state  in  them 
must  have  debarred  the  divine  relation  which  the  words  mean. 
This  is  manifest  in  our  Lord's  comment  upon  them  :  ''  He  is  not 
the  God  of  the  dead,  but  the  God  of  the  living."'  This  clearly 
means  the  conscious  existence  of  disembodied  spirits. 

t'  PSALMIST. 

In  a  season  01  deep  mental  perplexity  and  trouble  the 
Psalmist  finds  comfort  in  God  :  ''My  flesh  and  my  heart  faileth : 
but  God  is  the  strength  of  my  heart,  and  my  portion  forever. " ' 
Such  a  faith  apprehends  no  mental  extinction  in  death. 
"Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was  :  and 
the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it."  *     If  materialism  be 
true  the  whole  man  must  perish  in  death,  and  there  can  be  no 
ground  for  any  such  distinction   between  the   body  and  the  spirit 
as  this  text  makes.     Nor  could  it  be  said  that  the  spirit  returns  to 
God  in  the  event  of  death  if  its  conscious  life  then  per- 
ishes.    In  very  bold  words  Isaiah  pictures  the  downfall 
and  death  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  his  greeting  in  sheol  by  the 
royal  tyrants  who  had  fallen  and  gone  down  thither  before  him.* 
No  license  of  rhetorical  figure  could  allow  such  picturing  by  a 
sacred  writer  who  did  not  believe  in  the  conscious  existence  of  dis- 
embodied spirits.     Indeed,  if  there  be  not  such  an  existence  the 
whole  representation  was  false  to  the  truth,  and  gave  support  to  the 
popular  faith  which  was  false. 

"  And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill 
the  soul."  "     But  if  there  is  no  conscious  existence  in      j^,  ^he  new 
the  disembodied  state,  to  kill  the  body  is  to  kill  the     testament. 
soul  also.     Yet  while  man  can  kill  the  body  he  is  powerless  to  kill 
the  soul.     The  appearance  of  Moses  and  Elias  in  the 
scene  of  the  transfiguration  is  conclusive  of  the  con- 
scious state  of  the  dead.'     On  the  denial  of  such  a  state  there  is  no 
interpretation  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  to  the  Sadducees."     The 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  means  the  conscious  existence 
of  disembodied  spirits.'     Such,  too,  is  the  meaning  of 
the  words  of  our  Lord  to  the  dying  thief :  "  To-day 
shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise." '"    When  dying  Stephen  prayed, 

'  Exod.  iii,  6.  '  Mark  xii,  27.         ^  Psa.  Ixxiii,  26.      *  Eccles.  xii,  7. 

'  Isa.  xiv,  9-12.         « Matt,  x,  28.  '  Matt,  xvii,  3.         »  Mark  xii,  24-27. 

» Luke  xvi,  19-23.    '<»  Luke  xxiii,  43. 


434  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

*^Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit,"'  it  was  in  no  thought  of  an 
immediate  state  of  extinction,  but  in  the  full  assurance  of  an  im- 
mediate entrance  into  a  happy  life.      In  the  view  of 
Paul,  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  as  in  the  state  of 
death,  is  to  be  present  with  the  Lord.^     But  to  be  thus  present 
with  the  Lord  is  certainly  to  be  in  a  conscious  state  :  "  For  I  am 
in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire  to  depart,  and  to  be  with 
Christ ;  which  is  far  better."  '     But  Paul  could  not  think  an  un- 
conscious state  better  than  the  present  life  in  the  service  of  Christ ; 
hence  he  must  have  thought  the  intermediate  state  to 
be  one  of  conscious  existence.     "  Blessed  are  the  dead 
Tvhich  die  in  the  Lord  from  henceforth  ; "  *   that  is,  from  the  time 
of  their  death.     This  is  the  truth  of  a  conscious  state  of  disem- 
bodied spirits. 

3.  Revieio  of  Objections. — One  objection  is  based  on  texts  which 
ONE  ON  CER-  S6t  forth  death  as  the  termination  of  all  mental  activ- 
TAiN  TEXTS.  ity  or  knowlcdgc.  There  are  texts  according  to  which 
the  dead  know  not  any  thing ;  the  same  thing  befalleth  man  and 
beast ;  as  the  one  dieth,  so  dieth  the  other ;  so  that  man  hath  no 
pre-eminence  above  a  beast.  ^  Such  texts  are  easily  and  properly 
interpreted  on  the  ground  that  they  describe  the  state  of  the  dead 
simply  in  its  relation  to  the  present  life.  In  this  sense  there  is  a 
complete  ending  of  human  life.  Any  interpretation  which  ren- 
ders these  texts  inconsistent  with  our  personal  consciousness  in  the 
intermediate  state  must  render  them  equally  inconsistent  with  any 
and  all  future  existence.  There  is  no  need  thus  to  place  them  in 
contradiction  to  the  pervasive  sense  of  the  Scriptures. 

It  is  objected  that  such  a  conscious  state  is  an  impossibility. 
ASSUMED  m-  First  of  all,  this  objection  is  based  on  the  ground  of 
POSSIBILITY,  materialism ;  but,  as  that  ground  is  false,  so  far  it 
is  nugatory.  In  another  view,  much  may  be  said  against  the  possi- 
bility of  a  conscious  mental  life  in  a  disembodied  state,  since  the 
present  conditions  of  such  a  life  cannot  there  exist ;  but  all  that 
can  really  be  meant  is,  that  we  are  ignorant  of  the  modes  of  mental 
activity  in  that  state.  In  truth,  we  are  equally  ignorant  of  the 
modes  of  such  activity  in  the  present  life.  Familiarity  with  the 
facts  of  such  activities  means  nothing  as  to  a  knowledge  of  their 
modes.  Indeed,  the  idea  of  the  mental  life  of  an  unbodied  spirit 
is  no  more  a  mystery  for  our  thought  than  the  idea  of  such  a  life 
in  an  embodied  spirit.  Hence  this  objection,  which  depends  wholly 
upon  the  limitation  of  our  knowledge,  is  utterly  groundless.     No 

'  Acts  vii,  59.  "■  2  Cor.  v,  6-8.  "  Phil,  i,  33.  *  Eev.  xiv,  13. 

«  Job  xiv,  10  ;  Psa,  xlix,  12  ;  Eccles.  iii,  18-31. 


THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  435 

philosophy  within  our  reach  can  deny  the  possibility  of  a  conscious 
life  in  the  intermediate  state. 

Some  who  hold  the  consciousness  of  the  soul  in  the  intermediate 
state  reduce  its  mental  life  to  very  narrow  limits,  for  y^j  j^  ^.j.^y 
the  reason  that  it  is  deprived  of  the  organs  of  sense-  narrow  life. 
perception,  and  therefore  of  all  the  forms  of  knowledge  thus  ren- 
dered possible.  We  have  no  warrant  for  the  assumption  of  such 
limitation,  because  we  know  nothing  of  the  capabilities,  certainly 
nothing  against  the  large  capabilities,  of  knowledge  in  an  unbodied 
spirit.  The  angels  are  without  corporeity  ;  yet  we  do  not  think  of 
them  as  limited  to  a  very  narrow  mental  life.  Indeed,  theirs  is  a 
very  large  mental  life.  No  doubt  such  is  the  possibility,  and  such 
the  actuality,  of  the  life  of  the  soul  in  the  intermediate  state. 

III.  Not  a  Pkobationaky  State. 

1.  Significant  Silence  of  Scripture. — The  Scriptures  make  no 
announcement  of  any  probation  after  the  present  life.  The  merest 
suggestion  of  such  a  state  is  all  that  may  reasonably  be  claimed  ;  and 
rarely  is  any  thing  more  actually  claimed.  As  to  any  explicit  utter- 
ance in  favor  of  a  second  probation,  there  is  a  dead  silence  ^ot  an  ex- 
of  the  Scriptures.  How  is  this  ?  Probation,  with  its  plicitword. 
privileges  and  responsibilities,  very  deeply  concerns  us.  No  period 
of  our  existence  is  fraught  with  deeper  interest.  The  Scriptures 
are  replete  with  such  views  of  our  present  probation.  They  con- 
stantly press  it  upon  our  attention  as  involving  the  most  solemn 
responsibilities  of  the  present  life  and  the  profoundest  meaning  of 
interests  of  the  future  life.  In  a  future  probation  there  ™^  ^^^''^• 
must  be  a  renewal  of  all  that  so  deeply  concerns  a  present  proba- 
tion ;  yet  there  is  not  an  explicit  word  respecting  it.  Such  silence 
of  the  Scriptures  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  reality  of  such  a 
probation. 

2.  Clear  Sense  of  Scripture. — The  urgency  with  which  the  Script- 
ures press  the  importance  of  improving  the  present  j;j,PHAsr  on 
opportunities  of  salvation  deny  us  all  hope  of  a  future  present  op- 
probation.  A  few  texts  will  make  this  position  fear-  portumties. 
fully  sure  :  "  Whatsoever  thy  hand  findeth  to  do,  do  it  with  thy 
might ;  for  there  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wis- 
dom, in  the  grave,  whither  thou  goest.'"  "The  night  cometh, 
when  no  man  can  work."'  '' Then  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Yet  a 
little  while  is  the  light  with  you.  Walk  while  ye  have  the  light, 
lest  darkness  come  upon  you  :  for  he  that  walketh  in  darkness 
knoweth  not  whither  he  goeth.     While  ye  have  the  light,  believe  in 

'  Eccles.  ix,  10.  '  John  ix,  4. 


436  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

the  light,  that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  light." '  ''Therefore  we 
ought  to  give  the  more  earnest  heed  to  the  things  which  we  have 
heard,  lest  at  any  time  we  should  let  them  slip.  For  if  the  word 
spoken  by  angels  was  steadfast,  and  every  transgression  and  dis- 
obedience received  a  just  recompense  of  reward  ;  how  shall  we 
escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation  ? "  ^  The  many  texts 
which  assure  us  of  salvation  on  our  repentance  and  faith,  but  either 
directly  or  by  implication  deny  it  to  us  on  the  refusal  or  neglect 
of  such  terms,  equally  affirm  the  same  truth.  It  suffices  that  we 
give  a  few  by  reference.' 

The  deeds  for  which  we  shall  render  an  account  at  the  judgment, 
and  according  to  which  our  destiny  shall  be  determined, 

ONLY  DEEDS  °  .  "'  .  . 

OF  THE  PREs-  are  dccds  of  thc  prcscut  lifc.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
ENTUFE.  reference  to  any  other.     Many   texts  might  easily  be 

cited  in  proof  of  these  statements.  However,  they  are  so  surely 
true  that  one  may  suffice  :  "  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the 
judgment  seat  of  Christ ;  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things 
done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be 
good  or  bad."*  If  there  be  a  future  probation  we  would  rationally 
think  of  it  as  continuing  until  the  final  judgment.  On  every  reason- 
able view  of  it,  the  responsible  deeds  of  the  great  majority  of  man- 
kind would  be  incalculably  more  numerous  therein  than  such  deeds 
of  the  present  life.  Yet  in  all  the  texts  which  set  forth  the  final 
judgment,  many  of  which  are  very  specific  as  to  the  deeds  for 
which  account  shall  be  rendered,  there  is  not  the  slightest  reference 
to  any  other  deeds  than  those  of  the  present  life.  This  fact  is  most 
conclusive  against  a  second  probation. 

3.  TJie  Question  Respecting  the  Heathen. — A  second  probation  is 
specially  maintained  in  behalf  of  the  heathen.  Much  that  is  plau- 
sible may  be  said  in  support  of  this  view  ;  and  the  more  as  against 
any  doctrine  or  system  of  doctrines  which  denies  the  possibility  of 
their  salvation.  We  have  no  responsible  part  in  any  such  issue,  as 
we  hold  no  such  doctrine.  The  question  before  us  is,  not  the  rea- 
sons which  may  be  urged  in  favor  of  a  future  probation  of  the 
heathen,  but  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures  respecting  such  a  proba- 
tion. 

In  the  light  of  the  Scriptures  there  is  a  distinction  between 
DEGREES  OF  ^^  hcatheu  and  such  as  have  the  law  of  God  in 
GUILT.  the  form  of  a   divine  revelation,  and   between  those 

under  the  Jewish  economy  and  those  under  the  Christian,  as  it 
respects  the  degree  of  guilt  and  the  severity  of  future  punishment.* 

'  John  xii,  35,  36.-  ^  Heb.  ii,  1-3.  =  Mark  xvi,  15,  16  ;  John  iii,  14-lG,  18,  36. 
4  3  Cor.  V,  10.  5  Luke  xii,  47,  48  ;  Rom.  ii,  12  ;  Heb,  xii,  25. 


THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  437 

There  is,  however,  no  distinction  as  it  respects  tlieir  amenability 
to  the  same  judgment  for  the  deeds  of  the  present  life,  ^  c.mmon 
or  the  determination  of  their  final  destiny  according  to  amknauility. 
the  same.  On  these  points  the  words  of  Ht.  Paul  are  most  explicit. 
In  the  first  place,  he  sets  forth  a  moral  responsibility  under  the 
light  of  nature."  That  such  is  his  meaning  is  perfectly  clear  in  the 
passage  given  by  reference.  Then  we  have  his  declaration  of  the 
divine  equity  in  the  judgment  and  destiny  of  men,  without  any 
distinction  as  between  Jew  and  Gentile.''  And  finally  we  have  these 
explicit  words  :  ''For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also 
perish  without  law  ;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law  shall  be 
judged  by  the  law  ...  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  se- 
crets of  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  my  gospel."'  Such 
is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul,  and  it  is  impossible  to  read 
into  his  words  the  meaning  of  a  second  probation  for  the  heathen 
world. 

The  facts  above  presented  are  so  conclusive  against  the  assump- 
tion of  a  future  probation  that  opposing  texts,  for  which  nothing 
more  can  reasonably  be  claimed  than  the  suggestion  of  such  a  jiro- 
bation,  are  without  weight  in  the  issue.  This  is  true  of  the  unpar- 
the  text  respecting  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.*  Only  donable  sin. 
a  part  of  it  need  be  cited  :  *'  But  whosoever  speaketh  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  nei- 
ther in  the  world  to  come."  It  is  assumed  that  these  words  imply 
a  possible  forgiveness  of  all  sins  in  a  future  state,  except  the  speci- 
fied sin  of  blasphemy.  Surely  this  is  slender  ground  on  which  to 
base  a  future  probation.  The  words,  "  neither  in  the  world  to 
come,"  may  mean,  not  a  future  state  in  distinction  from  the  present, 
but  simply  the  absolute  irremissibility  of  the  one  speci-  bearixgs  of 
fied  sin.  Further,  any  interpretation  of  the  text  in  the  case. 
favor  of  a  future  probation  must  concede  it  the  meaning  of  eternal 
punishment — the  very  doctrine  against  which  such  probation  is 
maintained.  And  who  knows  how  many  finally  commit  the  sin  that 
never  hath  forgiveness  ?  If  it  is  true  that  some  think  this  a  very 
rare  sin,  it  is  equally  true  that  others  think  it  very  common  with 
the  finally  incorrigible ;  so  that  the  promise  of  gain  is  not  enough 
to  justify  the  assumption  of  a  future  probation  on  such  slight 
ground. 

The  ground  is  equally  slight  in  the  text  wherein  it  is  said  that 
Christ  went  and  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison.'  Some  of 
the  best  commentators  say  that  the  words,  "  he  went  and  preached," 

'  Rom.  i,  18-21.  » Rom.  ii,  6-11.  =  Rom.  ii,  12-16. 

♦  Matt,  xii,  31,  32.  '  1  Pet.  iii,  18-20. 

30  " 


438  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

meau  simply,  he  preached.  But  how  ?  Not  in  person,  but  by  the 
THE  SPIRITS  IN  Spirit.  And  to  whom  ?  To  those  who  were  disobedient 
PRISON.  in  the  time  of  Noah.       It  may  have  been  then  that 

Christ  preached  to  them  by  the  Spirit,  either  through  his  strivings 
with  them'  or  in  the  preaching  of  Noah.''  Hence  the  assumption 
that  Christ  went  and  preached  in  hades  has  slight  warrant  in  this 
text.  That  he  there  preached  the  Gospel  has  no  warrant.  Further, 
the  narrow  limits  of  this  preaching,  whatever  or  wherever  it  was, 
allows  no  ground  for  the  assumption  of  a  common  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  spirits  of  the  dead.  Indeed,  the  obscurity  of  the 
text  and  the  uncertainty  of  its  meaning,  which  appear  in  the  diver- 
sities of  its  interpretation,  allow  it  no  doctrinal  weight  in  favor  of 
a  future  probation. 

4.  Not  a  Piirgatorial  State. — Purgatory,  as  an  assumed  Christian 
doctrine,  is  peculiar  to  Romanism.  It  has  no  place  in  the  creed 
of  any  other  Church,  though  in  some  it  may  be  held  by  individ- 
ual members.  In  Eomanism  Christians  compose  two 
classes :  the  imperfect,  and  the  truly  good.  The 
former  have  impurities  which  must  be  cleansed  away,  and  venial 
sins  which  must  be  expiated  in  penal  suffering,  in  order  to  a  meet- 
ness  for  heaven.  Even  the  truly  good,  while  free  from  the  guilt 
of  mortal  sins,  yet  have  deserts  of  temporal  punishment  which  must 
be  expiated.  Purgatory  provides  for  both  classes,  as  in  its  penal 
and  purifying  fires  both  may  attain  to  a  fitness  for  heaven.  But 
it  provides  only  for  such  as  the  Romish  Church  recognizes  as  Chris- 
tians ;  therefore  it  has  no  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  a  second 
probation. 

It  is  a  part  of  the  doctrine  that  purgatory  is  in  some  respects 
subiect  to  the   Church.     By  prayers,    and  alms,  and 

IN  THE  HANDS  ''.  ...  , 

OF  THE  masses  its  penal  sufferings  may  be  mitigated  or  the 

CHURCH.  hour  of  release  hastened.     The    doctrine   has  been  a 

fruitful  source  of  revenue  ;  a  mighty  power  of  oppression  and  ex- 
tortion that  has  not  remained  unused.     Hardly  any  other  doctrine 
has  such  proportion  or  such  potency  in  the  Papal  sys- 
tem.    Yet  there  is  but  slight  pretension  to  any  Script- 
ure ground  of  the  doctrine.     Indeed,  there  is  no  such  ground.     It 
may  be  found  in  Homer,  and  Plato,  and  Virgil,  and  other  classical 
writers,  but  not  in  the  Scriptures.     It  was  unknown  to  the  early 
Church ;  assumed  no  definite  form  until  late  in  the  fourth  cent- 
ury ;  and  was  first  decreed  as  an  article  of  faith  by  the  Council 
of  Florence  in  the  fifteenth  century.     The  doctrine  is  openly  false 
to  the  soteriology  of  the  Gospel,  according  to  which  we  are  saved, 
'  Gen.  vi,  3.  ^  2  Pet.  ii,  5. 


THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  439 

completely  saved,  from  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin  through  the 
blood  of  Christ  and  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit. 

Hobart  :  The  State  of  the  Departed  ;  Brown  :  The  Dead  in  Christ,  their  State, 
Present  and  Future ;  Wightinan :  The  Undying  Soul  and  the  Intermediate 
State  ;  West :  The  State  of  the  Dead  ;  Whately  :  A  View  of  Scripture  Revela- 
tion Concerning  a  Future  State  ;  Bush  :  The  Intermediate  State,  etc.  ;  Merrill  : 
Tfie  New  Testament  Idea  of  Hell ;  Townsend  :  The  Intermediate  World  : 
Cremer  :  Beyond  the  Grave  ;  Fyfe  :  The  Hereafter :  Sheol,  Hades,  etc.  ;  Bick- 
ersteth  :  Hades  and  Heaven  ;  Huidekoper  :  ChrisVs  Mission  to  the  Underworld  : 
Wright :  Relation  of  Death  to  Probation  ;  Craven  ;  Excursus  in  Lange  on  Reve- 
lation, Am.  ed.,  1874,  pp.  364-377  ;  Domer :  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol. 
iv,  pp.  373-434. 


440  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE    SECOND   ADVENT. 

Theee  was  a  first  advent  of  Christ,  when  he  came  as  the  Messiah. 
That  coming  was  in  the  mode  of  an  incarnation,  in  order  to  the  re- 
demption of  the  world.  There  is  another  coming  of  Christ  which, 
in  distinction  from  the  first,  we  call  the  second  advent.  Its  prom- 
inence in  the  Scriptures  and  in  Christian  thought  justifies  such 
designation. 

I.  Doctrine  of  the  Advent. 

The  doctrine  of  the  advent  is  concerned  with  the  manner  of 
Christ's  second  coming — whether  it  will  be  personal  and  visible  or 
merely  in  a  spiritual  or  providential  mode ;  also  with  the  time  of 
his  coming,  particularly  whether  it  shall  be  premillennial  or  post- 
millennial.  The  last  question  must  be  determined  in  view  of  the 
concomitants  of  the  advent. 

1.  A  Personal,  Visible  Coming  of  Christ. — There  are  some  signs 
of  a  present  tendency  of  thought  away  from  the  traditional  doctrine 
of  a  personal,  visible  advent,  in  favor  of  a  merely  spiritual  or  prov- 
AN  OPPOSING  idential  manifestation.  The  prevalence  of  the  new  view 
VIEW.  would  carry  with  it  a  recasting  of  the  traditional  doctrines 

of  the  general  resurrection  and  the  final  judgment,  or,  rather,  the 
elimination  of  these  doctrines.  We  see  no  sufficient  reason  for  the 
acceptance  of  this  view,  and  therefore  adhere  to  the  manner  of  the 
advent  so  long  held  in  the  faith  of  the  Church.  That  the  Script- 
ures set  forth  the  coming  of  Christ  as  in  a  personal,  visible  manner 
can  hardly  be  questioned.  Indeed,  such  expression  of  it  seems  so 
definite  and  clear  as  to  leave  no  place  for  the  opposing  view.  A  few 
texts  will  suffice  for  the  presentation  of  this  point. 

We  have  the  deep  words  of  Christ  respecting  his  going  to  pre- 
woRDs  OF  OUR  P^^6  ^  place  for  his  disciples  and  his  coming  again  to 
LORD.  receive  them  unto  himself  :  "  In  my  Father's  house  are 

many  mansions  :  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you.  I  go  to 
prepare  a  place  for  you.  And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you, 
I  will  come  again,  and  receive  you  unto  myself  ;  that  where  I  am, 
there  ye  may  be  also."'  These  words  are  clear  in  themselves,  and 
clear  beyond  question  when  read  in  the  light  of  the  ascension  of 

•  John  xiv,  2,  3. 


i 


THE  SECOND  ADVENT.  441 

Christ  and  the  promise  of  his  coming  again  :  "Ye  men  of  Galilee, 
why  stand  ye  gazing  uyi  into  heaven  ?  this  same  Jesns,  which  is  taken 
up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  have 
seen  him  go  into  heaven."  '  Here  are  the  very  going  and  coming 
again  which  Christ  promised  in  the  text  before  cited.  Ilis  going  was 
personal  and  visible,  and  the  promise  is  that  his  coming  again  shall 
be  in  like  manner. 

The  long-hidden  purpose  of  God  respecting  the  redemption  of  the 
world  "  is  now  made  manifest  by  the  appearing — r^g  apostolic 
emtpaveiag — of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"^  which  cer-  words. 
tainly  was  a  personal,  visible  coming.  Then  why  shall  not  the 
"  appearing — £m(f)dvecav — of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,"  '  for  which  we  look,  be  personal  and  visible  ?  Many  such 
texts  might  be  adduced,  but  it  will  suffice  that  we  add  a  few  simply 
by  reference.^  If  such  texts  are  in  themselves  less  explicit  than 
some  above  cited,  yet  when  read  in  the  light  of  the  former,  as 
they  should  be,  they  clearly  mean  the  same  manner  of  the  coming 
of  Christ. 

A  point  is  sometimes  made  on  the  meaning  of  parousia — napovaia, 
from  TTapelvai — a  word  not  rarely  rendered  in  the  sense 

PAROirmA 

of  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  point  is,  that  the  word 
means  simply  to  be  present  with,  not  any  act  of  coming.  That  it 
means  to  be  present  with  is  manifest  in  its  composition,  but  that  it 
means  only  this  is  contrary  to  fact.  It  is  not  rarely  used  in  the 
sense  of  coming  and  arriving.  There  are  instances  in  which  such 
must  be  its  meaning.*  So  there  are  uses  of  the  word  in  application 
to  Christ  which  must  mean  more  than  his  presence  with  us ;  in- 
deed, must  mean  his  personal  coming  to  us  in  order  to  his  presence 
with  us.'  Perhaps  the  full  meaning  of  the  word  in  such  use  is  a 
personal  coming  of  Christ  to  be  abidingly  present  with  his  people. 
And  this  accords  strictly  with  the  meaning  of  various  texts  which 
set  forth  his  coming ;  ^  but  we  can  no  more  eliminate  from  the 
word  the  meaning  of  his  personal  coming  to  us  than  that  of  his 
presence  with  us. 

2.  Theory  of  a  Merely  Figurative  Sense. — A  figurative  sense  of 
the  second  advent  is  opposed  to  the  literal  sense  ;  that  is,  it  denies 
a  literal  coming  of  Christ,  and  limits  the  whole  account  of  it  to  the 
meaning  of  some  purely  spiritual  work  or  specially  providential 

'  Acts  i,  11.  2  2  Tim.  i,  10.  '  Tit.  ii,  13. 

*  Phil,  iii,  20  ;  1  Thess.  i,  10  ;  iv,  15,  16 ;  2  Thess.  i,  7,  10 ;  1  Pet.  i,  7. 
'  1  Cor.  xvi,  17  ;  2  Cor.  vii,  6,  7  ;  2  Pet.  iii,  12. 

•  1  Thess.  iv,  15-17  ;  James  v,  8  ;  2  Pet.  iii,  4. 
''  John  xiv,  2,  3 ;  1  Thess.  iv,  15-17. 

30  » 


442  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

interposition  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  This  was  the  position 
of  a  type  of  Universalism  which,  fifty  years  ago,  was  strong  enough 
in  some  parts  of  our  own  country  to  make  itself  known.  There  is 
much  less  of  it  now.  As  this  school  denied  all  future  punishment 
GRouNP  OF  it  was  compelled  to  deny  the  traditional  view  of  the  sec- 
THE  THEORY.  qjj(J  advcut.  Thc  contention  against  it  was  based  largely 
on  the  discourse  of  our  Lord  respecting  the  destruction  of  the  tem- 
ple.' ,The  endeavor  was  to  find  therein,  together  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  the  fulfillment  of  all  that  the  Scriptures  say 
respecting  the  second  advent.  At  the  present  time  some  who  have 
no  sympathy  with  such  a  type  of  Universalism,  nor  indeed  with  any 
other,  yet  hold  the  same  narrow  view  respecting  the  subject  of  that 
notable  discourse.  Such  may  consistently  believe  in  other  comings 
of  Christ,  and  even  in  a  final  coming ;  but  after  a  figurative  inter- 
pretation of  that  discourse,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  coming  of 
Christ,  they  may  so  interpret  all  that  the  Scriptures  say  elsewhere 
respecting  his  second  coming,  and  thus  deny  a  personal,  visible 
advent. 

The  interpretation  of  that  discourse  on  the  ground  of  a  literal 
advent  is  not  without  dijQficulty;  but  a  theory  which 

PERPLEXITY  •/    -'  V 

must  interpret  all  that  the  Scriptures  say  upon  the  sub- 
ject in  a  figurative  sense  involves  much  greater  difficulty.  This 
may  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  evidences  of  a  literal  advent  already 
adduced. 

Eespecting  the  discourse  of  our  Lord,  a  central  point  of  the  issue 
OUR  LORD'S  lies  in  these  words  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  This  gen- 
DiscouRSE.  eration  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled."  * 
In  the  preceding  part  the  coming  of  Christ  is  set  forth  in  such 
forms  of  expression  as  the  Scriptures  elsewhere  employ  in  setting 
forth  the  final  advent.  The  following  points  are  then  made :  That 
coming  of  Christ  occurred  in  the  time  of  the  generation  then  liv- 
ing, the  proof  of  which  is  in  the  words  above  cited  ;  that  coming 
was  purely  figurative  in  its  mode,  not  in  any  sense  literal ;  there- 
fore, all  that  the  Scriptures  say  respecting  the  final  advent  may  be 
POINTS  IN  interpreted  in  a  like  figurative  manner.  Two  points 
issrE.  aj.g  made  in  behalf  of  a  literal  sense  of  the  final  advent. 

The  first  assumes  a  double  sense  of  our  Lord's  prophetic  utterances, 
or  a  blending  of  the  consummation  of  the  world's  history  with  the 
destruction  of  the  temple  and  the  consummation  of  the  Jewish 
economy.  The  second  assumes  that  the  word  generation,  as  used 
in  the  above  citation,  means  the  Jewish  race,  not  the  Jews  then 
living.  Hence,  as  this  race  still  exists  and  may  exist  even  to  the 
'  Matt,  xxiv,  XXV.  "^  Matt,  xxiv,  34. 


THE  SECOND  ADVENT.  443 

end  of  time,  the  coining  of  our  Lord,  which  he  sets  forth,  would 
not  be  separated  from  his  final  advent,  but  would  remain  one  with 
it.  Much  may  be  said  against  both  of  tliese  points,  but  we  think 
them  less  objectionable  than  any  theory  which  requires  the  inter- 
pretation of  all  the  Scriptures  say  respecting  the  second  advent  in 
a  purely  figurative  sense.  Stock  or  race  is  a  fully  recognized  mean- 
ing of  the  original  word,  yeved,  in  both  its  classical  and  biblical 
uses.  The  continuance  of  this  race,  despite  its  dispersions  and  tribu- 
lations, is  one  of  the  wonders  of  human  history,  and  might  well 
have  been  included  in  the  subjects  of  our  Lord's  far-reaching 
prophecies. 

3.  The  FremiUe7imal  TJieory. — The  theory  is  that  Christ  will 
come  personally  at  the  inception  of  the  millennium  and  reign  on 
earth   for   a   thousand    years.       Such   is   the   central 

£  il  •  I.  -i.  £  THE  THEORY. 

assumption,  and  so  far  there  is  much  unity  01 
faith  among  premillennialists,  while  on  subordinate  points  there 
are  many  diversities  of  view.  Some  think  that  the  martyrs  will  be 
raised  at  this  advent,  and  will  reign  with  Christ ;  others,  that  all 
the  saints  will  then  be  raised,  that  they  may  share  in  the  glory  of 
his  kingdom.  This  advent  will  inaugurate  the  millennial  life  of 
the  Church,  and  this  reign  will  be  the  chief  agency  through  which 
the  triumph  of  Christianity  shall  be  achieved.  Our  concern,  how- 
ever, is  specially,  almost  wholly,  with  the  question  of  a  premillen- 
nial  advent. 

The  chief  reliance  of  the  theory  is  upon  a  single  passage  of 
Scripture.'  This  may  be  said,  first,  that  the  passage  scripture 
contains  not  a  word  respecting  any  advent  of  Christ,  nor  ground. 
a  word  respecting  his  reigning  personally  on  the  earth.  Further, 
it  is  in  a  highly  figurative  or  symbolical  book,  and  is  itself  highly 
symbolical.  Consequently  the  construction  of  a  theory  of  the 
advent  on  such  ground  is  without  the  warrant  of  any  principle 
of  doctrinal  formation,  and  the  more  certainly  so  as  there  are  many 
explicit  texts  on  that  subject.  So  far  as  the  passage  relates  to  the 
resurrection,  it  will  be  considered  in  our  treatment  of  that  question. 

IL  The  Advent  in  the  Light  of  its  Concomitants. 

By  the  concomitants  of  the  advent  we  mean  the  great  facts  of  es- 
chatology  which  shall  be  cotemporary  with  it  or  immediately  fol- 
low it. 

1.  27ie  General  Resurrection. — The  Scriptures  place  the  coming 
of  Christ  in  close  time-relation  with  the  resurrection.  "  The  hour 
is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his 

'  Rev.  XX,  1-6. 


444  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

voice,  and  shall  come  forth/' '  These  are  the  words  of  Christ  him- 
ouR  LORD'S  self.  It  is  true  that  they  do  not  formally  name  his  ad- 
■woRDs.  vent,  but  they  clearly  imply  it.     He  had  just  declared 

himself  invested  with  the  power  of  judgment,  the  final  and  supreme 
exercise  of  which  is  frequently  set  forth  in  connection  with  his  ad- 
vent. Further,  that  the  dead  shall  hear  his  voice  associates  the 
resurrection  with  his  advent.  This  is  a  general  resurrection  in  the 
FURTHER  fullest  sense  of  the  term.  Some  texts  set  forth  the 
PROOFS.  resurrection  of  the  righteous  only,  but  in  the  most  gen- 

eral sense,  and  formally  associate  it  with  the  coming  of  Christ.* 
That  the  wicked  rise  at  the  same  time  is  made  certain  by  the  words 
of  Christ  above  cited ;  so  that  we  still  have  a  general  resurrection 
in  connection  with  his  coming.  "  I  charge  thee  therefore  before 
God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  judge  the  quick  and 
the  dead  at  his  appearing  and  his  kingdom.'''  The  dead  must  be 
raised  prior  to  their  judgment ;  and  the  text  properly  means  all  the 
dead.  These  facts  place  the  general  resurrection  in  close  connection 
with  the  coming  of  Christ. 

2.  The  Final  Judgment. — It  is  a  truth  of  the  Scriptures  that 
CHRIST  THE  Christ  shall  finally  judge  the  human  race  :  "  For  the 
JUDGE.  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all  judg- 

ment unto  the  Son."*  ^'Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  the 
which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom 
he  hath  ordained."^  ''For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Christ."  ^ 

A  few  texts  will  suffice  to  show  the  coincidence  of  the  final  judg- 
ment  with   the  second  advent.     We  first  adduce  the 

COINCIDENT 

WITH  THE  AD-  closlug  paragraph  of  that  notable  discourse  of  our  Lord 
^^^^'  which  began  with  the  destruction  of  the  temple.''     The 

citation  may  be  omitted,  since  the  facts  which  it  sets  forth  are 
familiar.  The  passage  is  too  broad  in  its  scope  for  any  limitation 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  There  is  the  coming  of  Christ  in 
his  glory,  with  all  the  holy  angels  ;  the  gathering  of  all  nations 
before  him ;  the  judgment  of  all  ;  the  final  destinies  of  all.  N"o 
events  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  could  fulfill  the  scope  of 
these  facts.  That  fulfillment  is  possible  only  with  the  final  advent 
of  our  Lord  and  the  judgment  of  mankind.  Hence  the  passage 
places  these  events  in  close  connection.  The  same  is  true  of  a 
similar  text,  in  which  there  is  a  like  judgment  of  men  at  the  com- 
ing of  Christ,  and  a  punishment  of  the  wicked  when  he  shall  come 

'  John  V,  28,  39.  ^  i  Cop,  ^v,  33,  33  ;  1  Thess.  iv,  15-17. 

3  3  Tim.  iv,  1.  *  John  v,  33.  *  ^pts  xvii,  31. 

«  3  Cor.  V,  10.  ^  Matt,  xxv,  31-43. 


THE  SECOND  ADVENT.  445 

to  be  glorified  in  his  saints.'  A  text  before  cited  in  proof  of  the 
time-association  of  the  resurrection  with  the  second  advent 
equally  proves  such  association  of  the  final  judgment :  "I  charge 
thee  therefore  before  God,-  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appearing  and  his  kingdom."' 
The  quick  mean  all  who  shall  be  living  at  the  time  of  the  ad- 
vent, and  the  dead,  all  who  have  previously  died.  Hence  the 
text  sets  forth  the  final  judgment  as  a  concomitant  of  the  second 
advent. 

3.  TJie  End  of  the  World. — The  second  advent  will  be  in  the 
consummation  of  the  world's  history.  "  But  this  man,  close  to  thk 
after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,  forever  sat  advent. 
down  on  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  from  henceforth  expecting  till  his 
enemies  be  made  his  footstool."^  This  text  surely  means  that 
Christ  will  administer  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom,  even  to  the  end, 
from  his  throne  in  heaven  ;  and  this  fact  places  his  advent  at  the 
end  of  the  world.  "  Whom  the  heaven  must  receive,  until  the  times 
of  restitution  of  all  things,  which  God  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth 
of  all  his  holy  prophets,  since  the  world  began."  *  These  words 
mean  that  Christ  shall  remain  in  heaven  until  the  fulfillment  of  all 
the  prophecies  ;  and  this  fulfillment  will  not  be  complete  until  the 
consummation  of  the  world's  history.  Thus  again  the  second 
advent  is  placed  at  the  end  of  the  world. 

The  same  fact  is  made  plain  by  the  words  of  St.  Peter. ^  He 
forewarns  the  Church  of  certain  scoffers  who  should  the  words  of 
come,  saying,  "  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming  ?  peter. 
for  since  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they  were 
from  the  beginning  of  the  creation."  Peter  answers  them  before- 
hand. They  would  come  with  the  understanding  that  the  end  of 
the  world  would  be  coincident  with  the  coming  of  Christ.  Hence 
their  objection  :  all  things  continue  as  they  were  from  the  begin- 
ning ;  there  are  no  signs  of  the  world's  dissolution ;  it  will  abide 
forever ;  hence  Christ  will  never  come.  Peter  answers  in  two 
points  :  first,  he  sets  forth  a  former  destruction  of  the  world  ; 
secondly,  he  declares  the  manner  of  the  second  destruction.  In 
the  first  he  corrects  their  mistake  respecting  the  past ;  in  the 
second,  their  mistake  respecting  the  manner  in  which  the  world 
should  come  to  an  end.  The  end  should  come,  not  as  the  result  of 
a  gradual  process  of  decay,  as  these  scoffers  would  falsely  assume, 
but  suddenly,  through  the  agency  of  fire,  as  the  world  perished 
before  by  the  flood.     Thus  St.  Peter  clearly  sets  forth  the  truth, 

'  2  Thess.  i,  6-10.  «  g  Tim.  iv,  1.  ^  Heb.  x,  13,  13. 

^Actsiii,  21.  5  2  Pet.  iii,  3-10. 


446  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

that  the  end  of  the  world  shall  be  concomitant  with  the  final 
coming  of  Christ. 

The  Scripture  proofs  of  a  personal  advent  disprove  the  figura- 
tive interpretation.     The  concomitants  of  the  advent, 

OTHER  THE-  ^  ' 

OKIES  Dis-  which  we  have  set  forth  on  the  ground  of  Scripture, 
PROVED.  forbid  its  limitation   to  any  such  local   event  as   the 

destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Further^  they  thoroughly  disj)rove 
the  theory  of  a  premillennial  advent.  Not  in  any  assumption 
of  the  theory  shall  there  then  be  either  a  general  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  or  the  final  judgment  of  mankind,  or  the  end  of  the 
world. 

This  theory  is  not  only  opposed  to  the  Scriptures,  but  is  in 
OBJECTIONS  TO  ^^^^^^  opcn  to  scrious  objections.  Its  natural  tendency 
pREMiLLEN-  Is  to  a  dcpreciatiou  of  existing  evangelistic  agencies  ;  and 
NiAL  VIEW.  consequently  to  discouragement,  and  the  enervation  of 
effort  in  such  work.  Why  strive  for  the  achievement  of  that  for 
which  there  are  no  sufl&cient  means  ?  Why  not  wait  for  the  divine 
efficiencies  which  shall  accompany  the  personal  advent  and  reign  of 
Christ  ?  Yet  existing  agencies  are  such  as  our  Lord  ordained  for 
the  achievement  of  this  great  work.  "  And,  behold,  I  send  the 
promise  of  my  Father  upon  you."  '  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations  :  .  .  .  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world.  Amen."'  Here  are,  at  once,  the  divinely  in- 
stituted agencies  for  the  evangelization  of  the  world  and  the  divine 
guaranties  of  success.  But  there  is  no  premillennial  advent  nor 
personal  reign  of  Christ  in  the  assuring  promise  of  his  abiding 
presence. 

The  reign  of  Christ  from  his  throne  in  heaven,  through  the  mis- 
THE  BETTER  ^^0^  ^^  ^^^  Spirit,  Is  bcttcr  for  the  Church  and  the 
ECONOMY.  accomplishment  of  its  work  than  would  be  his  per- 
sonal reign  on  earth.  He  said  himself :  ''It  is  expedient  for 
you  that  I  go  away :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will 
not  come  unto  you ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you."' 
What  was  the  better  then  is  the  better  now,  and  will  be  the  better 
even  to  the  end  of  time.  The  personal  presence  of  Christ  in  Je- 
rusalem, with  the  assumed  splendor  of  his  advent  and  throne, 
instead  of  being  an  organizing  and  energizing  agency,  would  dis- 
organize all  existing  agencies  and  enervate  all  present  endeavors 
for  the  evangelization  of  the  world.  If  vast  multitudes  once 
swept  onward  to  the  Orient  simply  to  possess  the  empty  tomb 
of  Christ,  what  would  be  the  movement  thither  if  he  were  there 
in  all  the  glory  of  his  personal  reign  ?  The  social  order  of  the 
'  Luke  xxiv,  49.  »  Matt,  xxviii,  19,  20.  ^  John  xvi,  7. 


THE  SECOND  ADVENT.  447 

world  would  be  deeply  disturbed,  while  the  interests  of  Christianity 
would  suffer  very  serious  detriment. 

Pearson  :  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  article  vii  ;  Brown  :  The  Second  Advent ; 
Carson  :  The  Personal  Reign  of  Christ  DuHtig  the  Millennium  Proved  to  be  Im- 
possible ;  Merrill  :  The  Second  Coming  of  Christ  ;  Liddon  :  The  Two  Comings  of 
Chir  Lord  ;  Cunningham  :  The  Second  Advent  of  Christ  ;  Lee  :  Scripture  Doc- 
trine of  the  Coming  of  Our  Lord ;  Duffield  :  The  Prophecies  Relative  to  the  Sec- 
ond Coming  of  Christ  ;  Bonar  :  The  Coming  and  the  Kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ; 
Lord  :  The  Coming  and  Reign  of  Christ  ;  Warren  :  The  Parousia. 


i 


448  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    RESUBBECTION. 

That  the  Scriptures  declare  a  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  too  plain 
a  fact  to  be  questioned  ;  hence  it  is  needless  to  maintain  such  a 
proposition.  The  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  in  such  declaration  is 
the  real  question  of  the  resurrection.  That  meaning  must  be  found 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  appropriate  texts.  Therein  lies  the 
truth  of  the  question. 

I.    DOCTRIZSTE    OF   THE    RESURRECTION. 

1.  TJie  Sense  of  tlie  Scriptures. — We  may  first  state  the  doctrine, 
and  then  show  that  it  gives  the  true  sense  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  body  in  which  we  die  shall  be  the  subject  of  the  resurrection. 
THE  BODY  I^  ^^  is  not  such  in  some  proper  sense  there  is  no  resur- 
KAisED.  rection  of  the  body.     So  far  the  statement  is  general, 

and  may  admit  some  qualification.  There  is  an  absolute  identity  of 
the  body,  and  there  is  a  proper  identity.  The  former  requires  every 
atom  of  which  it  is  composed  at  any  given  time  ;  the  latter  is  con- 
sistent with  less,  even  with  much  less,  than  the  whole,  just  as  a  proper 
identity  is  consistent  with  the  changes  to  which  it  is  subject  in  the 
present  life.  When  we  say  that  the  body  in  which  we  die  shall  be 
the  subject  of  the  resurrection  we  mean  in  the  sense  of  a  proper 
identity,  not  in  that  of  an  absolute  identity.  The  Scriptures  do 
not  affirm  a  resurrection  in  the  latter  sense;  nor  can  we  affirm 
the  necessity  of  every  atom  to  the  constitution  of  the  resurrection 
body.  For  aught  we  know,  far  less  than  the  whole  will  suffice  for 
such  body. 

There  is  no  proof  of  such  a  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  except  in 
the  Scriptures.  It  cannot  be  proved  through  primary 
OFTHERESUR-  assumptlous  which  imply  or  require  it,  though  such 
RECTION.  mode  of  proof  is  often  attempted.     For  instance,  it  is 

assumed  that  a  body  is  necessary  to  the  future  life  of  the  soul.  In 
truth,  we  have  no  philosophy  which  warrants  any  such  affirmation ; 
FALSE  AssuMp-  Diuch  Icss,  that  such  body  must  consist  of  the  very 
TioNs.  matter  of  our  present  body.    This  matter  is  not  peculiar 

to  our  body,  but  is  common  to  the  organic  realm,  and  to  the  world 
in  which  we  live  and  die,  and  for  aught  we  know  any  other  portion 


THE  RESURRECTION.  440 

would  answer  just  as  well  for  all  the  requirements  of  the  future 
body.  It  is  assumed  that  character  is  expressed  through  the  body, 
and  hence  that  the  resurrection  body  must  be  the  same  in  order  to 
such  expression  in  the  future  state.  Now,  granting  all  that  is  as- 
sumed respecting  the  expression  of  character  in  the  present  life, 
certainly  that  expression  is  not  from  the  mere  matter  of  the  body, 
but  from  its  physiological  cast,  or,  more  truly,  from  the  inner  life 
of  the  soul.  But  the  resurrection  body  shall  not  have  a  physio- 
logical constitution  ;  and,  even  if  it  should,  any  other  matter  would 
answer  for  the  required  form  just  as  well  as  that  which  composes 
the  body  in  the  present  life.     Again,  it  is  assumed  that 

-  ,  ^  .  ?       1  THE  BODY  NO 

the  body  shares  m  the  deeds  of  the  present  life,  and  responsible 
therefore  should  share  in  the  retributions  of  the  future  ■^'^*^''^^* 
life.  In  truth,  the  body  has  no  responsible  part  in  the  deeds  of  the 
present  life.  It  is  only  from  mental  confusion  or  an  utter  lack  of 
discrimination  that  we  ever  think  it  has.  The  body,  with  all  its 
members,  is  purely  instrumental  to  the  agency  of  the  personal  mind, 
which  is  the  only  responsible  subject.  That  we  may  see  the  more 
clearly  the  utter  groundlessness  of  the  present  assumption,  let  us 
think  of  the  moldered  dust  of  a  human  body,  and  then  try  to  think 
of  it  as  a  responsible  sharer  in  the  deeds  of  this  life  and  as  rewardable 
for  the  same  in  the  future  life.  The  future  body  may  affect  the 
consciousness  of  the  soul,  and  so  far  may  concern  its  destiny,  but 
can  have  no  other  part  therein.  Nor  could  there  be  any  peculiar 
effect  from  a  body  composed  of  the  matter  of  the  former  body  ;  the 
effect  would  be  the  very  same  from  a  body  composed  of  other 
matter. 

Sentiment  joins  with  assumption  in  such  proof  of  a  literal  resur- 
rection. We  would  see  again  and  know  the  friends  we  misleading 
have  loved  and  lost ;  hence  there  must  be  such  a  resur-  sentiment. 
rection.  The  sentiment  we  deeply  respect,  but  must  think  the 
inference  utterly  invalid.  Our  point  is  not  against  the  future 
recognition,  but  against  the  assumed  necessity  to  it.  There  is  no 
,Buch  necessity  in  the  identity  of  the  resurrection  body  with  the 
substance  of  the  present  body.  We  meet  and  recognize  a  friend 
after  a  separation  of  ten  or  twenty  years,  in  which  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  his  body  has  been  changed.  It  follows  that  the  mere 
matter  of  the  body  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  recognition,  the 
ground  of  which  is  in  the  physiological  cast  and  the  outward  ex- 
pression of  the  inner  life.  Whatever  be  the  provisions  for  future 
recognitions,  of  which  we  know  nothing,  certainly  they  are  just 
as  possible  on  the  ground  of  other  matter  as  on  that  of  the  pres- 
ent body. 


450  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

The  reason  of  these  criticisms  seems  obvious.  It  is  not  wise  to 
build  any  doctrine  on  fallacious  grounds.  This  is  specially  true 
AIM  OF  THE  0^  such  a  doctrine  as  the  resurrection,  respecting  which 
CRITICISMS.  there  is  a  strong  tendency  to  skepticism.  The  false 
grounds  are  sure  to  be  detected,  and  then  the  doctrine  is  cast  aside 
Avith  them.  Its  true  and  only  ground  is  in  the  Scriptures.  That 
the  reason  for  the  resurrection  is  not  open  to  our  intelligence 
cannot  disprove  it.  There  may  still  be  a  sufficient  reason.  Indeed, 
there  must  be  such  a  reason,  if  the  resurrection  of  the  body  be  a 
truth  of  the  Scriptures.  Whether  it  be  such  a  truth  must  be  deter- 
mined by  a  study  of  the  appropriate  texts.  Nor  need  we  study  a 
great  many  ;  for  if  the  doctrine  cannot  be  found  in  a  few  neither 
can  it  in  the  many. 

We  first  adduce  the  words  of  our  Lord :  **  Marvel  not  at  this  : 
WORDS  OF  OCR  ^^r  thc  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in 
LORD.  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth."' 

The  reflexive  reference  is  specially  to  verses  21  and  25,  wherein  he 
speaks  of  raising  the  dead  :  perhaps  in  a  spiritual  manner ;  very 
clearly  in  a  literal  manner,  as  in  the  instance  of  Lazarus  and  others. 
This,  however,  should  cause  no  surprise  in  view  of  the  infinitely 
more  stupendous  work  which  he  sets  forth — the  future  resurrection 
of  all  the  dead.  The  literal  sense  of  this  resurrection  can  hardly  be 
questioned.  The  subjects  of  it  are  in  the  graves — Tolg  ^vrjfieioig — 
literally,  the  burial  places  of  the  bodies  of  the  dead.  The  souls  of 
the  dead  are  not  in  such  places  ;  hence  they  cannot  be  the  subjects 
of  this  resurrection,  although  it  be  true  that  they  shall  severally 
resume  possession  of  their  bodies.  Surely  it  is  in  the  meaning  of 
these  words  that  the  body  in  which  we  die  shall  be  the  subject  of 
the  future  resurrection. 

We  come  to  the  special  chapter  of  the  resurrection.'  That 
it  treats  almost  exclusively  the  resurrection  of  Christian  believers 
does  not  in  the  least  affect  its  meaning  respecting  the  present 
question. 

In  verses  12-23  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  openly  set  forth 
PLEDGE  AND  ^^^  maintained.  It  is  so  connected  with  the  resur- 
s AMPLE.  rection  of  Christ  that  the  latter  is  at  once  the  pledge 

and  sample  of  the  former.  In  all  this  the  literal  sense  seems 
obvious.  Indeed,  it  is  not  apparent  how  the  facts  can  have  any 
other  meaning. 

In  verse  35  objections  are  anticipated  :  "  But  some  man  will  say. 
How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?  and  with  what  body  do  they  come  ?  " 
These  questions  embody  two  objections  to  the  resurrection :  one, 
»  John  V,  38,  39.  '  1  Cor.  xv. 


Till-]  I{KSUHRECTION.  451 

against  its  possibility  ;  the  other,  against  its  desirability.  That 
such  are  the  objections  seems  clear  in  view  of  both  the  objections 
standpoint  of  the  objector  and  the  reply  of  St.  Paul.  anticipatki>. 
The  objector  is  a  Greek,  or  at  least  imbued  with  Greek  thought, 
which  denied  the  possibility  of  the  resurrection.  Josephus  met 
this  same  objection  and  controverted  it  against  the  Greeks.'  The 
second  objection  found  an  ample  source  in  Greek  thought.  It  is 
true  that  the  Greek  philosophy  was  not  really  Manichaean,  but 
equally  true  that  it  was  deeply  imbued  with  the  notion  of  the  evil 
nature  of  matter.  Hence  the  Greek  could  not  think  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  a  good,  but  could  and  did  object  to  it  as  a 
thing  utterly  undesirable.  That  such  are  the  objections  which 
St.  Paul  here  anticipated  will  further  appear  in  the  manner  of  his 
reply. 

If  the  objector  mistook  the  sense  of  the  resurrection  it  was  in 
place  for  Paul  simply  to  correct  him.     This,  however, 

THE    ANSWFR 

he  does  not  do,  but  makes  answer  on  the  ground  of  a 
literal  sense.  It  may  be  observed  that  the  answer  is  not  to  these  ob- 
jections separately,  but  to  the  two  together,  and  predominantly  to 
the  second — the  one  with  which  the  literal  sense  of  the  resurrection 
is  the  more  deeply  concerned.  The  defense  proceeds  on  the  ground 
of  the  plastic  nature  of  matter  and  the  marvelous  transformation  of 
which  it  is  susceptible.  This  is  the  ruling  idea  in  the  reference  to 
vegetation,  to  the  different  kinds  of  flesh,  and  to  bodies  celestial 
and  terrestrial.  There  is  the  same  matter  in  all  these  widely  vary- 
ing forms.  As  matter  is  thus  plastic  in  the  hand  of  God,  the  body 
may  be  so  refashioned  in  the  resurrection  as  to  be  a  perpetual  good. 
Only  in  such  a  view  is  there  either  point  in  the  anticipated  objec- 
tion or  pertinence  in  the  reply. 

In  precise  accordance  with  the  above  view,  St.  Paul  sets  forth,  in 
verses  42-44,  the  marvelous  change  of  which  the  body  ^^  accord 
shall  be  the  subject  in  the  resurrection  :  ''  So  also  is  the  with  thk 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  It  is  sown  in  corruption,  it  is  an  w  . 
raised  in  incorruption  :  it  is  sown  in  dishonor,  it  is  raised  in  glory  : 
it  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised  in  power  :  it  is  sown  a  natural 
body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body."  Such  also  is  the  subject  of 
verses  50-53  :  "  Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God  ;  neither  doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption."  The  body 
in  its  present  state  is  not  fitted  for  the  heavenly  state.  What 
then  ?  The  mystery  is  opened.  In  the  resurrection  the  body  shall 
be  changed  from  its  present  gross  form  into  a  form  suited  to  the 
heavenly  state  ;  and  the  bodies  of  those  then  living  shall  be  changed 
'  Discourse  on  Hades. 


452  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

in  like  manner.  No  interpretation  of  this  chapter  seems  to  us  pos- 
sible without  a  recognition  of  the  body  as  the  subject  of  the  resurrec- 
■  tion.  The  same  is  true  of  other  words  of  St.  Paul :  "  For  our  con- 
versation is  in  heaven  ;  from  whence  also  we  look  for  the  Saviour, 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may 
l>e  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the  working 
whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself." '  If 
the  body  is  not  the  subject  of  such  transformation  this  text  is  ut- 
terly inexplicable. 

2.  Speculative  Theories. — By  speculative  theories  we  mean  such 
as  are  inconsistent  with  the  resurrection  of  the  body  in  any  true 
sense  of  the  term. 

We  name  first  the  germ  theory — of  which  Samuel  Drew,  an  early 
THE  GERM  Weslcyau  of  distinction,  is  the  chief  representative.'' 
THEORY.  The  theory  assumes  the  existence  of  a  germ  or  stamen 

within  the  human  body,  which  is  not  subject  to  decay  or  dissolution 
as  the  body  itself,  and  which  at  the  final  advent  shall  be  expanded 
into  the  resurrection  body.  We  have  no  occasion  formally  to  con- 
trovert the  theory,  though  it  is  not  without  favorable  recognition  in 
some  recent  works  which  professedly  hold  a  more  orthodox  view. 
The  existence  of  such  a  germ  or  stamen  is  a  mere  assumption.  No 
searching  has  ever  discovered  it.  Nor  has  the  theory  any  sujDport 
in  St.  Paul's  reference  to  the  process  of  vegetation  simply  in  illus- 
tration of  the  marvelous  change  of  which  the  body  is  susceptible. 
It  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  central  idea  of  the  resurrection 
as  a  transformation  of  the  corruptible  body  into  an  incorruptible 
form.  The  theory  avoids  the  natural  difficulties  which,  seemingly 
at  least,  beset  this  doctrine,  but  involves  more  serious  ones  in  the 
matter  of  biblical  interpretation. 

The  Swedenborgian  theory  is  of  the  same  class.  Professor  Bush 
has  maintained  it  with  rare  ability,  but  has  not  freed 

THE     SWEDEN-  ,  •  m 

BORGiAN  THE-  It  from  Its  purcly  speculative  character.  The  theory 
^^^'  holds  that  the  resurrection  occurs  at  the  time  of  death. 

There  is  in  man  an  essence  which  is  of  neither  the  body  nor  the 
spirit,  but  is  something  between  them.  This  essence,  whatever  it 
is,  goes  forth  with  the  departing  spirit  and  immediately  invests  it 
as  its  future  corporeity.  Such  is  the  resurrection.  "  A  spiritual 
hody  is  developed  at  death.  By  spiritual,  in  this  connection,  we 
mean  refined,  subtle,  ethereal,  sublimated.  By  the  development  of 
a  spiritual  body  we  mean  the  disengagement — the  extrication — of 
that  psychical  part  of  our  nature  with  which  vital  and  animal  func- 
tions are,  in  the  present  life,  intimately  connected.  ...  It  is  a 
'  Phil,  iii,  20,  21.  '  Resurrection  of  the  Human  Body. 


THE  RESURRECTION. 


4r>;3 


iertium   quid — an  intermediate  something  between  the   cogitative 
faculty  and  the  gross  body/' ' 

The  theory  assumes  a  tricliotomic  anthropology,  and  must  be 
groundless  without  it.  But  such  an  anthropology  is  not  an  estab- 
lished truth  ;  and  so  long  as  it  is  not,  such  a  theory  of  trichotomic 
the  resurrection  must  remain  purely  hypothetic.  If  the  ground. 
reality  of  such  a  third  nature  in  man  be  granted  there  is  not  the 
slightest  proof  that  in  the  event  of  death  it  emerges  with  the  sjiirit 
and  becomes  its  corporeal  investment.  Further,  if  all  this  were 
shown  to  be  true  it  would  not  answer  for  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  which  the  Scriptures  set  forth.  Hence  the  theory  must  be 
dismissed  as  a  mere  speculation. 

3.  Tlie  Resurrection  Body. — While  the  body  shall  be  marvelously 
changed  in  the  resurrection,  it  shall  still  be  material  in 
substance.  The  terms  "  natural  body  "  and  "  spiritual 
body  ''  ^  mean  simply  different  states,  not  any  distinction  of  es- 
sence. In  a  word,  the  resurrection  is  a  transformation,  not  a  tran- 
substantiation.  The  latter  would  mean  a  future  body  of  the  same 
essence  as  the  spirit  of  which  it  shall  be  a  corporeal  investment. 
The  incongruity  of  such  a  state  of  things  disproves  it. 

The  materiality  of  the  resurrection  body  is  entirely  consistent 
with     its    immortality.       The   common    tendency   of 

.,,.  ,.,.  11'  iTi»  IMMORTAL. 

material  things  to  dissolution  or  death  is  wholly  from 
their  interior  constitution  or  exterior  condition,  or  from  both. 
The  constitution  and  condition  may  be  such  that  both  interior 
forces  and  exterior  agencies  shall  be  efficaciously  operative  toward 
the  dissolution  or  death  of  the  body  ;  but  just  the  opposite  is 
also  possible  with  respect  to  both.  Surely  God  can  so  consti- 
tute and  condition  the  resurrection  body  that  all  interior  forces 
and  external  influences  shall  work  together  for  its  immortality. 
So  far  the  resurrection  bodies  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked 
will  be  without  distinction,  the  immortality  of  the  body  being  no 
more  determinative  of  future  destiny  than  the  immortality  of  the 
soul. 

When  the  Scriptures  set  forth  the  wonderful  transformation  of 
the  body  in  the  resurrection  the  application  is  ever  and  ^he  trans- 
exclusively  to  the  righteous.  Much  might  be  said  on  formation. 
the  nature  of  this  change  and  the  consequent  blessedness  of  the 
future  life,  but  nothing  that  could  improve  the  presentation  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  and  it  will  suffice  that  their  inspired  utterances  be 
giverr  simply  b)^  reference.^ 

'  Bush  :  Anastasis,  p.  78.  '  1  Cor.  xv,  44. 

'Luke  XX,  36  ;  1  Cor.  xv,  42-54  ;  Phil,  iii,  21. 

31  * 


454  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

II.  Ceedibility  of  the  Resurrectiojs'. 

1.  A  Divinely  Pui'posed  Futurity. — That  God  purposes  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  is  a  truth  which  is  surely  grounded  in 
the  texts  of  Scripture  which  set  forth  such  a  resurrection.  This 
fact  is  so  plain  that  it  needs  no  further  treatment ;  and  its  mean- 
ing for  the  credibility  of  the  resurrection  is  manifest.  All  un- 
conditional purposes  of  God  shall  be  accomplished.  There  is 
ground  for  a  distinction  between  his  conditional  and  uncon- 
ditional purposes.  The  former  are  not  absolute,  and  therefore 
may  never  be  effectuated,  as  the  conditions  of  their  effectuation 
may  never  be  met.  But  absolute  purposes  have  no  such  con- 
ditions, and  therefore  must  be  fulfilled.  No  such  purpose  can 
ever  meet  any  insuperable  hinderance.  The  resurrection  was  not 
purposed  in  any  oversight  of  its  difficulties,  and  nothing  can 
hinder  its  achievement.  Therefore  as  a  divinely  purposed  futurity 
it  is  thoroughly  credible. 

2.  Within  the  Plan  of  Redemption. — The  resurrection  of  the 
dead  is  as  really  a  part  of  the  Christian  economy  as  the  redemption 
of  the  world.  This  appears  in  its  close  connection  with  the  resur- 
coMPLETioN  rection  of  Christ  and  the  implications  of  its  denial.  If 
OF  THE  PLAN,  thc  dcad  rise  not,  Christ  is  not  risen,  neither  is  there  any 
salvation  in  him.^  The  completion  of  his  mediatorial  reign  shall  be 
attained  only  with  the  resurrection  :  "  For  he  must  reign,  till  he 
hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last  enemy  that  shall  be 
destroyed  is  death."*  These  words  area  part  of  St.  Paul's  formal 
treatment  of  the  resurrection,  and  clearly  set  it  forth  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  Christian  economy.  As  this  economy  shall  not  fail  of 
its  completion,  so  shall  the  dead  rise  again.     On  the  ground  of 

such  facts  the  resurrection  is  surely  credible  in  the  view 

THE  TRIUMPH  .  .  / 

OF  CHRIST  of  Christian  faith.  We  have  said  that,  so  far  as  we 
SIGNALIZED.  \j^Qyf ^  othcr  mattcr  than  that  of  our  own  body  would 
answer  as  well  for  the  resurrection  body.  The  proposition  is  equally 
true  conversely.  Hence  it  may  please  God  that  the  mediatorial 
triumph  of  his  Son  shall  be  signalized  by  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  which  was  made  subject  to  death  on  account  of  sin.  The 
thorough  inclusion  of  the  resurrection  within  the  economy  of  re- 
demption is  suggestive  of  this  thought. 

3.  Apparent  Difficulties  of  the  Doctrine. — Such  difficulties  may 

be  elaborately  displayed,  but  a  few  words  will  present 

STATED  tJ  s.        *J         -^  ■*- 

them  in  all  their  real  strength.     The  body  crumbles 
into  dust,  and  the  dust  may  be  widely  scattered.     Some  of  it  may 
'  1  Cor.  XV,  12-19.  "  1  Cor.  xv,  23,  26. 


THE  RESURRECTION.  455 

go  to  the  nourishment  of  vegetation,  and  through  it  to  the  nourish- 
ment of  animal  tissue,  and  through  either  or  both  become  incorpo- 
rated in  other  human  bodies.  Further,  there  are  instances  of  can- 
nibalism, with  a  like  result.  Such  are  the  difficulties.  They  center 
in  two  points  :  the  wide  dispersion  of  the  particles  which  composed 
the  living  body,  and  the  possibility  that  in  the  course  of  time  some 
may  belong  to  diiferent  bodies. 

The  apparent  magnitude  of  these  difficulties  is  far  greater  than 
the  real,  especially  if  we  view  tliem,  as  we  should,  in 
the  light  of  the  divine  providence.  The  dispersion  of 
the  particles  is  real  only  in  our  own  view.  However  widely  scat- 
tered or  deeply  mingled  with  other  matter,  they  remain  as  near  to 
the  omniscient  eye  and  omnipotent  hand  of  God  as  if  placed  in  an 
imperishable  nrn  at  the  foot  of  his  throne.  Nor  is  there  any  prob- 
ability, even  on  natural  grounds,  that  in  any  case  so  much  matter 
could  become  common  to  two  bodies  as  would  be  necessary  to  a 
proper  identity  of  either.  When  we  place  the  subject  in  the  light 
of  God's  providence,  whose  purpose  it  is  to  raise  the  dead,  all  diffi- 
culties vanish. 

In  referring  the  possibility  of  the  resurrection  to  the  divine 
sufficiency  we  do  but  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the  y,E^  op  the 
logic  of  the  question.  Zeno  pronounced  the  resurrection  scripturks. 
the  hope  of  worms,  and  Celsus  applauded  him  as  wiser  than  Jesus. 
Pliny  deemed  it  impossible,  even  to  the  power  of  God,  "revocare 
defunctos."  Philosophers  falsely  so  called  find  in  a  fortuitous  con- 
cursus  of  incoherent  atoms,  or  in  the  potentialities  of  a  primordial 
fire-mist,  the  original  of  mind  and  the  harmonies  of  the  universe, 
but  declare  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  an  impossibility.  They  are 
effectually  answered  in  the  words  of  our  Lord  :  "  Ye  do  err,  not 
knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God."  ' 

III.  Oneness  of  the  Resurkection. 
1.   Tlieories  of  Distinct  Resurrections. — There  is  a  premillennial 
theory,  which  holds   that  the  martyrs,  if  not  all  the    premillen- 
saints,  shall  rise  at  the  inception  of  the  millennium    nial  theory. 
and  reign  with  Christ  a  thousand  years.     The  ground  of  the  theory 
lies  chiefly  in  a  single  text.'     The  souls  of  certain  martyrs  appeared 
in  the  vision  of  John,  and  he  said  these  things  :  "  And  they  lived 
and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  years.     But  the  rest  of    the 
dead  lived  not  again  until  the  thousand  years  were  finished.     This 
is  the  first  resurrection."     There  is  not  in  the  text  one  definite  word 
about  a  literal  resurrection.     The  "first  resurrection"  means  the^ 
>  Matt,  xxii,  29.  'Rev.  xx,  4-6. 


456  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

"  living  and  reigning  "  of  the  martyrs.  But  they  were  souls  in  a 
disembodied  state  ;  therefore  their  living  and  reigning  could  not 
mean  a  literal  resurrection.  Further,  such  a  meaning  requires 
the  premillennial  advent  and  the  personal  reign  of  Christ ;  but, 
as  we  have  seen,  neither  is  a  truth ;  therefore  there  is  here 
no  literal  resurrection  of  the  martyrs  at  the  inception  of  the 
millennium. 

The  text  is  most  easily  interpreted  on  the  theory  of  a  figurative 
NATUREOFTHE  rlsiug  aud  reigning.  The  martyrs  lived  and  reigned 
RESURRECTION,  jji  thc  triumph  of  the  cause  for  which  they  died. 
The  idea  of  a  resurrection  often  appears  in  the  Scriptures  in 
a  figurative  sense,  and  seems  very  natural  in  the  intense  and  bold 
symbolism  of  this  book.  In  the  hour  of  his  martyrdom  John  Huss 
proclaimed  the  triumph  of  his  cause,  and  said  :  "  And  I,  waking 
from  among  the  dead,  and  rising,  so  to  speak,  from  my  grave,  shall 
leap  with  great  joy."  It  was  in  the  same  manner  of  speech  that  Leo 
X.  said  :  "  The  heretics,  Huss  and  Jerome,  are  now  alive  again  in 
the  person  of  Martin  Luther."  In  glowing  vision  John  saw  the 
triumph  of  the  cause  for  which  these  martyrs  died,  and  summoned 
them  into  the  triumph.  This  is  their  living  and  reigning ;  and 
this  is  their  resurrection.' 

Another  theory  holds  distinct  resurrections  of  the  righteous  and 
THEORY  OF  ^^^  wlckcd,  though  narrowly  separated  in  time.  This 
TWO  NARROW-  thcory  is  probably  quite  common  in  popular  Christian 
REscRREc-  thought.  It  has  no  support  in  the  texts  upon  which  it 
TioNs.  mainly  rests.    We  have  first  this  text  :  "  But  every  man 

in  his  own  order  :  Christ  the  first-fruits  ;  afterward  they  that  are 
Christ^s  at  his  coming."'  There  is  here  no  direct  reference  to  the 
wicked,  and  hence  no  distinction  between  their  resurrection  and 
that  of  the  righteous.  The  only  distinction  in  relation  to  the  res- 
urrection is  between  Christ  and  his  disciples.  Another  text  is  in 
these  words  :  "  And  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.'''  ^  But  nei- 
ther in  these  words  nor  in  the  context  is  there  any  reference  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  wicked  ;  hence  there  is  no  time-distinction 
between  it  and  that  of  the  righteous.  The  context  makes  obvious 
the  real  point  of  distinction.  It  is  between  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  and  the  ascension  of  the  living  to  meet  the  coming  Lord. 
The  former  shall  be  first  in  the  order  of  time,  and  then  all  shall  as- 
cend together  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air.  There  is  no  proof  in  the 
text  that  the  righteous  shall  rise  before  the  wicked. 

2.  Proof  of  the  Oneness. — It  was  before  shown  that  the  resurrec- 

>  Brown  :  The  Second  Advent,  pp.  218-259.  =  1  Cor.  xv,  23. 

3  1  Thess.  iv,  16. 


THE  RESURRECTION.  457 

tion  and  the  judgment  shall  be  concomitant  with  the  second  advent. 
This  means  that  all  shall  rise  at  the  same  time,  as  all  shall  be 
judged  at  the  same  time.  Both  shall  directly  follow  the  coming  of 
our  Lord." 

Hanna  :  The  Resurrection  of  the  Dead;  "Wescott  :  The  Gospel  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion ;  Mattison  :  The  Resurrection  of  the  Dead  ;  Landis  :  The  Resurrection  of 
the  Body  ;  Brown:  The  Resurrection  of  Life  ;  Cook:  Doctrine  of  the  Resuivec- 
tion  ;  Kingsley  :  The  Resurrection  of  the  Dead;  Goulbum  :  Resurrection  of  the 
Body  ;  Cochran  :  The  Resurrection  of  the  Dead  ;  Drew  :  Identity  and  Oeneral 
Resurrection  of  the  Human  Body  ;  Bush  :  Anastasis :  or  the  Remi'vection  of 
the  Body. 

>  Matt.  XXV,  31-46  ;  John  v,  28,  29  ;  Eev.  xx,  11-15. 

3 
31 


458  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTEK  V. 

THE    JUDGMENT. 

There  is  in  the  Scriptures  the  doctrine  of  a  future,  general 
judgment.  Of  course  a  general  Judgment  must  be  future,  as  it 
must  be  subsequent  to  the  present  life  of  the  race ;  yet  we  think  it 
well  to  treat  the  subject  according  to  the  two  views  in  which  the 
Scriptures  present  it. 

I.  A  Future  Judgment. 

1.  Explicit  Words  of  Scripture. — The  deeper  idea  of  a  future 
judgment  is  that  of  a  present  probation  under  a  law  of  moral  duty  ; 
the  special  idea,  that  of  a  future  accounting  at  the  divine  judgment- 
seat  for  the  deeds  of  the  present  life.  That  such  is  the  view  of  the 
Scriptures  a  few  appropriate  texts  will  sufficiently  show. 

"  Rejoice,  0  young  man,  in  thy  youth  ;  and  let  thy  heart  cheer 
thee  in  the  days  of  thy  youth,  and  walk  in  the  ways  of  thine  heart, 
and  in  the  sight  of  thine  eyes  :  but  know  thou,  that  for  all  these 
things  God  will  bring  thee  into  judgment."  ''  Let  us  hear  the 
conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  :  Fear  God,  and  keep  his  command- 
ments :  for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man.  For  God  shall  bring 
every  work  into  judgment,  with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be 
good,  or  whether  it  be  evil."'  Present  moral  duty  and  future 
amenability  to  the  divine  judgment  are  plainly  the  meaning  of 
these  texts.  Just  when  we  shall  so  answer  is  not  stated ;  but  the 
texts  can  hardly  mean  an  earlier  time  than  the  termination  of  our 
present  life.  "  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment-seat 
of  Christ ;  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body, 
according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."* 
These  words  are  very  explicit.  There  is  the  same  idea  of  a  present 
probation  under  a  law  of  duty,  and  the  same  fact  of  a  divine  judg- 
ment-seat at  which  we  shall  answer  for  the  deeds  of  our  life.  Fur- 
ther, as  we  read  this  text  in  the  light  of  many  others  which  relate 
to  the  same  subject,  it  clearly  means  a  judgment  subsequent  to  this 
life. 

Other  texts  definitely  represent  the  judgment  as  in  a  future  state. 
**  I  charge  thee  therefore  before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
1  Eccles.  xi,  9 ;  xii,  13,  14.  «  2  Cor.  v,  10. 


THE  JUDGMENT.  459 

who  shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appearing  and  his 
kingdom."'  The  dead,  as  here  named,  must  comprise  u,  ^  futlrk 
all  who  shall  have  tiled  prior  to  the  judgment.  Hence  state. 
there  must  be  a  judgment  of  men  in  a  future  state.  There  are 
other  very  similar  texts  which  confirm  this  view.'^  Then  we  have 
these  explicit  words  :  "  It  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but 
after  this  the  judgment. " '  The  same  truth  is  in  the  words  of  our 
Lord,  wherein  it  appears  that  the  people  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  of  Nineveh  were  amenable  to  a  judgment 
still  future.*  Already  these  people  have  long  been  in  the  state  of 
the  dead  ;  hence  there  must  be  a  judgment  subsequent  to  the  pres- 
ent life. 

2.  Judgment  after  the  Resurrection. — There  is  in  many  texts  the 
proof  of  a  judgment  subsequent  to  the  resurrection  ;  but  a  few  will 
suffice  to  make  our  proposition  clear  and  sure.  "  For  the  hour  is 
coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice, 
and  shall  come  forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrec- 
tion of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
damnation."  *  It  is  true  that  the  judgment  is  not  formally  named 
in  this  text,  yet  the  meaning  of  it  is  there,  as  manifest  in  the  re- 
wards rendered  to  the  good  and  the  evil  ;  for  judgment  must  pre- 
cede such  rewards.  And  this  judgment  follows  the  resurrection. 
"  And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before  God  ;  and  the 
books  were  opened  :  and  another  book  was  opened,  which  is  the 
book  of  life  :  and  the  dead  were  judged  out  of  those  things  which 
were  written  in  the  books,  according  to  their  works.  And  the  sea 
gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it ;  and  death  and  hell  delivered 
lip  the  dead  which  were  in  them  :  and  they  were  judged  every  man 
according  to  their  works."  °  Part  of  this  text,  if  it  stood  alone, 
might  be  limited  to  disembodied  spirits,  which,  however,  would 
little  affect  the  doctrine  of  the  judgment  as  a  futurity ;  but  the 
reference  to  the  dead  from  the  sea  allows  no  such  limitation.  That 
reference  means  a  resurrection  of  the  subjects  of  the  judgment. 

II.  A  Gen^eral  Judgment. 

1.  Tlie  Scripture  Proof. — Whether  there  shall  be  a  general  judg- 
ment, one  in  which  all  shall  be  judged  at  the  same  time,  is  a 
question  which  only  the  Scriptures  can  answer.  There  are  evi- 
dences of  reason  for  a  future  judgment,  but  not  such  as  furnish  a 
sufficient  basis   for  the  doctrine  of  a  general  judgment,  though 

'  2  Tim.  iv,  1.  *  Acts  x,  42 ;  1  Pet.  iv,  5. 

3  Heb.  ix,  27.  ^  Matt,  x,  1") ;  Luke  x,  14  ;  xi,  32. 

•'  John  V,  28,  29.  «  Rev.  xx,  12,  13. 


460  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

sufficient  for  its  defense  against  sucli  objections  as  it  may  en- 
•counter. 

-A  few  appropriate  texts  will  furnish,  sufficiently,  the  Scripture 
proofs  of  a  general  Judgment.  Most  of  the  necessary 
texts  are  already  quite  familiar,  as  they  have  been  used 
in  the  presentation  of  other  facts  of  eschatology ;  hence  we  may  the 
more  briefly  present  them  here.  We  begin  with  the  words  of  our 
Lord  respecting  the  end  of  the  world.'  Here  the  facts  are:  the 
coming  of  Christ  in  his  glory,  with  all  the  holy  angels  ;  his  session 
upon  the  throne  of  his  glory ;  the  gathering  of  all  nations  before 
him ;  the  separation  between  the  evil  and  the  good  ;  the  final 
rewarding  of  each  class.  Surely  these  are  the  facts  of  a  general 
judgment.  '*  Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  the  which  he 
"will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath 
ordained  ;  whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."^  The  judgment  of  the  world  in 
an  appointed  day  of  the  future  must  be  a  general  judgment.  After 
asserting  the  moral  responsibility  of  all  men,  St.  Paul  says  :  "  For 
as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also  perish  without  law  ; 
and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law  shall  be  judged  by  the  law  ; 
...  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus 
Christ  according  to  my  gospel. " '  This  is  the  truth  of  an  ap- 
pointed time  in  which  all  shall  be  judged.  In  St.  John's  sublime 
vision  of  the  judgment  its  general  character  is  clearly  seen.^  There 
is  the  great  white  throne  ;  and  the  dead,  small  and  great,  are  before 
God;  and  all  are  judged  according  to  their  works.  In  no  words 
could  a  general  judgment  be  more  clearly  set  forth. 

It  is  objected  to  a  general  judgment,  which  must  be  delayed  until 
OBJECTIONS  ^^^  6^^  of  ^^^  world,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  an  in- 
coNsiDERED.  tcrmcdiatc  state  under  judicial  treatment,  because  the 
subjects  of  such  a  state  must  be  judged  prior  to  its  inception.  It 
is  also  maintained  that  this  objection  is  the  weightier  if  this  state 
is  in  the  places  of  final  destiny.  There  is  little  force  in  the  objec- 
tion on  either  ground  ;  indeed,  none  at  all.  That  we  are  all  the 
while  the  subjects  of  the  divine  judgment  implies  no  impropriety  in 
a  judgment  at  death  ;  and  no  more  does  the  latter  imply  any  im- 
propriety in  a  final  judgment  after  the  resurrection.  Neither  can 
the  places  of  souls  in  the  intermediate  state  concern  the  propriety  of 
such  a  judgment. 

The  long  delay  is  urged  as  another  objection.  There  are  many 
delays  in  the  final   judgments  of  human  courts,  while  meantime 

'  Matt.  XXV,  31-46.  ^  ^^tg  xvii,  31. 

3  Eom.  ii,  12,  16.  "  Rev.  xx,  11-13. 


THE   JUDGMENT.  461 

the  subjects  are  held  under  judicial  treatment ;  and  such  delays 
are  often  justified  by  wise  reasons.  And  if  comparatively  short 
they  may  yet  be  as  long  in  comj^arison  with  the  narrow  sphere  of 
human  judicature.  Nor  can  there  be  any  impropriety  or  wrong 
in  such  judicial  ministries  of  the  divine  wisdom  as  may  precede  a 
final  judgment. 

2.  Marnier  of  the  Judgment. — The  time  of  the  judgment  is 
designated  as  a  day,  but  with  the  idea  of  a  definite  period  of  the 
future  rather  than  of  its  duration.  The  length  of  the  time  is  not 
revealed  ;  and  we  have  no  means  of  knowing  what  it  shall  be.  Nor 
can  we  know  any  thing  of  the  manner  of  the  judgment.  It  is  repre- 
sented as  in  the  order  of  a  court,  but  such  representation  may  be 
largely  figurative,  so  far  as  the  actual  manner  is  concerned,  yet 
with  the  deepest  meaning  as  to  all  that  constitutes  its  reality.  The 
manner  must  be  such  as  will  answer  the  chief  end  of  the  judgment 
— the  vindication  of  God  in  his  moral  government.  Such  a  manner, 
however  now  hidden  from  us,  must  surely  be  within  the  resources  of 
his  infinite  wisdom  and  power. 


462  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

FTJTUBE    PUNISHMENT. 

If  we  accept  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures  we  must  be  loyal  to  their 
teaching  on  the  question  of  future  punishment,  as  on  all  others, 
and  none  the  less  so  because  of  its  fearful  character.  On  no  sub- 
ject could  the  perversion  of  truth  be  more  disastrous.  While  such 
perversion  may  neutralize  the  practical  force  of  the  truth,  and  in- 
duce a  false  sense  of  security,  it  is  powerless  to  avert  the  doom  of 
sin.  Our  only  safety  lies  in  the  acceptance  of  the  salvation  in 
Christ  Jesus. 

I.  Eatioxal  Proofs. 

1.  Reality  of  a  Moral  Government. — The  reality  of  a  moral  gov- 
ernment is  a  matter  of  common  consent  and  affirmation.  The 
sense  of  duty,  and  of  responsibility  to  a  divine  Ruler,  is  deeply 
wrought  into  the  moral  consciousness  of  the  race.  This  is  clearly 
the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul :  ^^For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not 
the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these,  having 
not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves  :  which  show  the  work  of 
the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness, 
and  their  thoughts  the  meanwhile  accusing  or  else  excusing  one 
another.^' ^  Such  a  moral  consciousness  of  the  race  means  the 
reality  of  a  moral  government  to  which  we  are  responsible. 

2.  TJnder  a  Law  of  Equity. — The  idea  of  the  divine  equity  is 
inseparable  from  the  sense  of  responsibility.  It  may  often  be  per- 
verted or  obscured,  but  the  principle  ever  asserts  itself.  Distribu- 
tive justice  must  be  impartial.  There  may  not  be  slight  penalties 
for  some  and  severe  penalties  for  others,  except  as  they  may  differ 
in  the  measure  of  guilt.  We  are  not  here  concerned  with  the  ques- 
tion respecting  the  degree  of  penalty  which  sin  may  deserve,  nor 
with  the  question  whether  sin  must  be  punished  in  the  full  measure 
of  its  desert.  Whatever  may  be  the  truth  in  these  respects,  it  must 
be  true  that  divine  punishments  are  administered  according  to  a 
law  of  impartiality.  Any  true  conception  of  God  must  constrain 
the  admission  of  such  equity.  If  there  be  omissions  of  this  law  in 
the  present  life  there  must  be  punishment  in  a  future  life,  unless 
forgiveness  is  here  attained. 

3.  Present  Omissions  of  the  Law. — The  meaning  here  is  that  in 

'  Eom.  ii,  14,  15. 


FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.  463 

the  present  life  penalties  are  not  inflicted  according  to  a  law  of 
exact  or  impartial  justice.  This  position  can  hardly  be  questioned. 
A  little  discussion  will  place  its  truth  in  a  clear  lisrht. 

^  .  °  M  O  D  K  S         O  K 

Punishment  may  be  inflicted  or  suffered  in  three  modes :  prksknt  pln- 
in  mind  ;  in  body  ;  in  estate.  We  do  not  here  raise  '^""'^''^• 
the  question  whether  the  sufferings  endured  in  these  modes  are  pun- 
ishments in  any  strict  sense.  Our  position  is  simply  that  if  we  are 
punished  in  the  present  life  it  must  be  in  one  or  more  of  these 
modes.  It  is  easy  to  show  that  punishments  are  not  so  adminis- 
tered according  to  the  penal  deserts  of  men. 

There  is  no  such  punishment  in  the  mental  mode.     One  man 
suffers    an  intenser   remorse  for  the    theft  of  a  dime  „    „ 

IN  MIND. 

than  another  for  the  crime  of  murder.  And  what  is 
thus  true  of  two  persons  is  true  of  the  same  person  in  different 
periods  of  his  life.  There  cannot  be  exact  justice  in  cases  so 
widely  different.  Then  there  are  instances  of  self-justification, 
even  of  complacency,  in  the  commission  of  heinous  crime  ;  and 
here  there  can  be  no  punishment  in  the  form  of  mental  suffering. 
Some  men  are  increasingly  wicked  through  a  long  course  of  life  ; 
therefore  they  should  be  the  subjects  of  an  ever-deepening  remorse, 
if  they  are  to  be  thus  punished  in  the  measure  of  their  desert. 
Such,  however,  is  not  the  case ;  for  there  is  no  such  deepening 
remorse.  Indeed,  the  result  is  just  the  contrary  ;  and  it  is  in  the 
very  nature  of  things  that  it  should  be  so.  In  a  persistent  course 
of  sinning  the  spiritual  vision  is  darkened  and  the  moral  feelings 
hardened  into  a  state  of  insensibility.  Conscience  is  seared  as  with 
a  hot  iron,  and  a  state  is  reached  which  the  Scriptures  describe  as 
''past  feeling.^'  Such  being  the  results  of  a  persistent  course  of  evil 
doing,  there  can  be  no  such  remorse  as  a  just  punishment  requires. 

There  are  two  forms  of  bodily  suffering  :  one  from  the  infliction 
of  legal  penalties  ;  the  other  from  the  visitation  of  God ; 
but  in  neither  is  there  any  strict  ministry  of  justice  ac- 
cording to  the  penal  desert. 

There  are  many  sins,  deeply  heinous  in  the  sight  of  God,  for 
which  human  laws  have  no  penalty.  Again,  in  many  gy  legal  pen- 
cases  criminals  escape  detection  and  punishment.  Fur-  alties. 
ther,  human  courts  are  subject  to  many  disabilities  which  often 
prevent  an  exact  rendering  of  justice.  Finally,  the  penalties  of 
human  laws  are  not  graduated  according  to  the  demerit  of  human 
sins,  as  we  see  plainly  in  their  wide  variations  in  different  ages  and 
countries.  Indeed,  they  are  not  based  upon  the  strictly  moral  de- 
merit of  sin,  and  therefore  cannot  be  the  punishment  of  sin  accord- 
ing to  its  moral  desert. 


464  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Nor  are  the  bodily  conditions  of  men  the  award  of  an  exact  dis- 
pROTiDEN-  tributive  justice.  It  seems  entirely  sufficient  to  state 
TiALLY.  this.     Who  would  assume  to  determine  the  moral  char- 

acter of  his  acquaintances  according  to  the  state  of  their  physical 
health  ?  We  do  not  adjudge  men  good  or  bad  just  as  they  may  be 
in  a  healthy  or  sickly  state.  Bodily  sufferings  are  not  in  any 
proportion  to  moral  character,  and  therefore  cannot  be  the  means 
whereby  sin  is  justly  punished  in  this  life. 

There  are  instances  in  which  wicked  men  greatly  suffer  in  mat- 
ters of  estate,  but  there  are  also  many  of  abiding  afflu- 

IN  ESTATE. 

ence.  Nor  are  the  experiences  of  good  men  obviously 
different  in  such  matters.  Surely  there  is  no  uniformity  of  differ- 
ence. In  this  respect  all  things  come  alike  unto  all  men.  As  it 
happens  to  the  evil,  so  it  happens  to  the  good.  Who  would  presume 
to  determine  the  moral  character  of  men  according  to  their  worldly 
estate  ?  As  such  estate,  whether  of  good  or  evil  fortune,  is  no 
index  to  the  ethical  life  of  men,  so  the  adversities  which  the  wicked 
suffer  in  such  matters  cannot  be  the  punishment  of  their  sins 
according  to  the  requirements  of  an  impartial  justice.  Indeed,  the 
present  probationary  life  is  not  the  sphere  of  distributive  justice,  in 
the  strict  ministries  of  which  men  are  punished  or  rewarded  accord- 
ing to  their  ethical  life.  We  are  here  so  related  that  the  righteous 
often  prevent  the  sufferings  which,  otherwise,  the  wicked  would 
endure,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  wicked  cause  much  suffer- 
ing to  the  righteous.  In  such  a  state  of  things  there  cannot  be  an 
impartial  administration  of  justice. 

Here,  indeed,  is  the  occasion  of  much  doubt  respecting  a  divine 
DOUBT  OF  A  providence.  Some  even  deny  such  a  providence.  The 
PROVIDENCE.  mental  movement  in  such  cases  is  obvious.  It  is  the 
conviction  of  all  minds  that  a  divine  moral  government  must  be 
righteous  ;  but  some,  limiting  the  view  to  the  present  life,  and  seeing 
therein  no  harmony  between  the  moral  cliaracter  of  men  and  their 
worldly  fortunes,  either  question  or  openly  deny  such  a  government. 
And  it  is  only  on  the  ground  of  a  future  retribution  that  we  can 
obviate  such  reasons  of  doubt  or  unbelief.  Indeed,  this  life  is  not 
the  sphere  of  an  exact  ethical  justice.  If  it  were,  no  one  would  suf- 
fer more  or  less  than  his  moral  desert  ;  but  the  actual  facts  are  far 
different.  Often  the  wicked,  even  the  heinously  wicked,  flourish  in 
worldly  affluence,  in  health  and  ease,  while  piety  and  charity,  pa- 
triotism and  philanthropy,  suffer  in  penury  or  under  the  heel  of 
oppression. 

The  inequality  of  rewards  in  the  present  life,  as  viewed  in  rela- 
tion   to  moral  character,  is  no  new  thought.     It  was  present  to 


FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.  465 

the  minds  of  ancient  men  of  God,  and  caused  them  no  little  per- 
plexity. Job  was  thus  deeply  perplexed;'  likewise  the  j^^  a  new 
Psalmist/  and  Solomon/  and  Jeremiah.^  In  these  pas-  pkri'lexity. 
sages  there  is  the  fullest  recognition  of  the  inequalities  in  the  fort- 
unes of  the  present  life,  as  viewed  in  relation  to  moral  character ; 
and  the  only  solution  of  the  perplexity  arising  from  such  a  state  of 
facts  is  found  in  the  thought  of  a  future  retribution. 

4.  Requirement  of  Future  Punishment. — Such  requirement  is 
consequent  to  the  principles  and  facts  above  presented.  It  is  true 
that  we  are  the  subjects  of  a  moral  government,  which  must  observe 
a  law  of  equity  or  of  im})artial  justice,  particularly  in  the  punish- 
ment of  sin.  It  is  equally  true  that  in  the  present  life  there  are 
many  omissions  of  such  punishment.  Hence  there  must  be  a 
future  retribution. 

II.  ScRiPTUKE  Proofs. 

Some  of  these  proofs  are  grounded  on  the  facts  of  eschatology 
already  considered,  and  may  therefore  be  presented  the  more  briefly. 
Indeed,  the  whole  argument  may  be  presented  in  its  full  strength 
without  much  elaboration. 

1.  Final  Neglect  of  Salvation. — It  is  a  clear  truth  of  the  Script- 
ures that  the  salvation  from  sin  offered  in  the  Gospel  is  conditional, 
and  to  be  attained  only  on  a  compliance  with  its  divinely  specified 
terms.  There  is  for  us  neither  forgiveness,  nor  regeneration,  nor 
sonship,  nor  final  blessedness  except  on  such  terms.  There  is  no 
salvation  without  repentance  for  past  sins,  faith  in  Christ,  and  a 
consecration  of  the  life  to  his  service.  AVithout  this  salvation  we 
are  liable  to  the  penalties  of  sin  as  announced  in  the  Scriptures. 
Hence  future  punishment  must  be  consequent  to  a  final  neglect  of 
salvation.  Yet  such  neglect  is  a  fact  on  the  part  of  many ;  there 
is  no  acceptance  of  the  salvation  in  Christ. 

2.  Fact  of  Dying  in  Sin. — There  is  such  a  fact.  Wicked  men  die 
without  repentance  or  forgiveness  ;  sometimes  in  the  very  act  of 
sinning.  In  the  light  of  Scripture  it  is  a  fearful  thing  so  to  die. 
"  The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness  :  but  the  righteous 
hath  hope  in  his  death."  '  If  there  is  no  future  punishment  why 
should  not  the  wicked  die  as  calmly  as  the  righteous,  and  with  the 
same  comfort  of  hope  ?  The  contrast  between  the  two  in  the  event 
of  death  emphasizes  the  certainty  of  punishment  hereafter.  "  Then 
said  Jesus  again  unto  them,  I  go  my  way,  and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and 
shall  die  in  your  sins:  whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come."     "I  said 

'  Job  xxi,  7-15.  '  Psa.  Ixxiii.  ^  Eccles.  viii,  14. 

*  Jer.  xii,  1,  2.  *  Prov.  xiv,  32. 


466  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

therefore  unto  you,  that  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins/"  Neither 
should  these  words  awaken  any  solicitude  nor  cause  any  alarm  if 
there  is  no  future  punishment.  As  we  read  them  in  the  light  of 
the  Gospel  they  must  mean  such  punishment. 

3.  Future  Happiness  only  for  the  Righteous. — We  include  as 
righteous  all  who  attain  to  the  Christian  life  or  the  state  of  true  be- 
lievers. In  the  Scriptures  future  blessedness  is  promised  to  them, 
and  to  them  only.  In  no  text  is  there  any  such  promise  to  the 
wicked,  while  in  many,  such  blessedness  is  expressly  denied  them. 
Those  who  believe  in  Christ  shall  be  saved,  but  those  who  believe 
not  shall  perish.'^  The  true  disciples  of  Christ  shall  ultimately  be 
with  him  ;  such  is  his  promise  to  them,  but  to  them  only.'  All 
who  through  spiritual  regeneration  become  the  children  of  God  are 
heirs  of  God,  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ,  and  shall  share  in  his 
glory  ;  but  there  is  no  such  promise  to  any  others.''  All  who  serve 
him  in  the  spirit  of  true  obedience  shall  attain  to  the  heavenly  life  ;  ^ 
and  all  who  wash  their  robes  and  make  them  white  in  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb  shall  come  to  the  blessedness  of  heaven  ; "  but  there  is 
still  not  a  word  of  such  promise  to  any  others.  Future  blessedness 
is  set  forth  as  peculiar  to  the  righteous  ;  indeed,  as  exclusively 
theirs.  There  is  not  only  no  intimation  of  any  j^articipation  of  the 
wicked  in  such  blessedness,  but  such  participation  is  formally 
denied.  All  this  must  mean  for  them  a  future  state  of  pun- 
ishment. 

4.  Contemporary  Doom  of  the  Wicked. — When  the  righteous  re- 
ceive their  future  reward  the  wicked  shall  meet  a  penal  doom.  On 
this  question  the  Scriptures  are  explicit  and  full.'  If  these  texts  set 
forth  the  same  future  blessedness  for  the  wicked  as  for  the  right- 
eous and  promised  its  bestowment  at  the  same  time,  then  how 
strong  and  sure  would  be  the  position  of  the  most  extreme  Univer- 
salism !  But  just  the  contrary  is  the  truth.  When  those  who  have 
rendered  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  shall  enter  into  the  heavenly 
kingdom  those  who  have  refused  such  obedience  shall  depart  ac- 
cursed. When  the  children  of  God  shall  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in 
the  glory  of  his  kingdom  the  children  of  iniquity  shall  be  cast  into 
hell.  When  the  righteous  enter  into  eternal  life  the  wicked  shall 
go  away  into  everlasting  punishment. 

5.  Punishment  at  the  Final  Advent. — Out  of  many  texts  we  select 

>  John  viii,  21,  24.  «  John  iii,  16,  36.  ^  joj^n  xiv,  1-3. 

*  Rom.  Tiii,  15-18.  ^  Heb.  v,  9  ;  Eev.  xxii,  14.  « Rev.  vii,  14-17. 

'  The  appropriate  texts  would  fill  pages  ;  but  it  will  sufl6.ce  that  we  give  a  few 
by  reference  :  Matt,  vii,  21-23  ;  xiii,  41-43  ;  xxv,  46  ;  Luke  xiii,  24-29  ;  Rom. 
ii,  6-9. 


FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.  4G7 

only  two  for  the  presentation  of  this  point  :  "  For  the  Sou  of  man 
shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels ;  and  then 
he  shall  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works."  '  Of  the  other 
text  we  give  the  central  points.  The  Son  of  man  shall  be  revealed 
from  heaven  for  the  infliction  of  punishment  on  them  that  know 
not  God,  and  obey  not  the  Gospel,  when  he  shall  come  to  be  glori- 
fied in  his  saints  and  to  be  admired  in  all  them  that  believe.'' 

6.  Resurrection  to  a  Penal  Doom. — There  will  be  a  resurrection 
of  both  the  just  and  the  unjust.  This  is  definitely  the  doctrine  of 
St.  Paul ; '  and  this  means  the  truth  of  what  we  here  maintain. 
The  same  truth  is  clearly  foreshadowed  in  these  words:  "And 
many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some 
to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  * 
Then  we  have  the  most  explicit  words  of  our  Lord  :  "  The  hour  is 
coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice, 
and  shall  come  forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrec- 
tion of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
damnation."  ^ 

'  7.  Final  Judgment  of  Condemnation. — Ample  proof  of  this  may 
be  found  in  our  treatment  of  the  judgment;  so  that  a  few  texts  will 
here  suffice.  "  For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also 
perish  without  law  ;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law  shall 
be  judged  by  the  laAv  ;  ...  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the 
secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ  according  to  my  gospel."  ®  "  For 
we  must  all  appear  before  the  Judgment-seat  of  Christ ;  that  every 
one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he 
hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."'  "But  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  which  are  now,  by  the  same  word  are  kept  in  store,  re- 
served unto  fire  against  the  day  of  Judgment  and  perdition  of  un- 
godly men."  * 

Here  are  seven  arguments,  all  thoroughly  scriptural  in  their 
ground,  and  severally  conclusive  of  future  punishment.  In  their 
combination  the  proof  is  cumulative  in  the  highest  degree. 

III.   Eteknity  of  PuJSriSHJIEXT, 

1.  Recoil  from  the  Doctrine. — There  is  a  recoil  of  the  sensibilities 
from  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  especially  in  respect  to 
the  duration  of  such  punishment.  This  should  cause  no  surprise. 
Indeed,  we  might  say  that  it  is  justified  by  the  divine  reluctance 
to  inflict  such  a  doom.     This  reluctance  is  expressed  in  many  words 

•  Matt,  xvi,  27.  ^  2  Thess.  i,  6-10.  ^  Acts  xxiv,  15. 

*  Dan.  xii,  2.  »  John  v,  28,  29.  «  Rom.  ii,  12,  16. 
'  2  Cor.  V,  10.                  8  2  Pet.  iii,  7. 


468  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  entreaty  and  compassionate  yearning  ;  most  of  all  in  the  burden 
of  sacrifice  which  divinity  itself  has  borne,  that  we  might  be  saved 
from  such  a  doom.  This  recoil  is  easily  made  the  occasion  of  a 
plausible  appeal  against  the  truth  of  the  doctrine.  But  that  is  not 
a  question  to  be  settled  by  our  sensibilities,  especially  by  such  as 
suffer  this  recoil.  Such  instinctive  feelings  have  no  rectoral  func- 
tion, and,  if  allowed  sway,  would  be  subversive  of  all  government. 
No  human  government  could  survive  their  dominance.  Hence 
they  can  have  no  part  in  determining  the  necessary  punitive  minis- 
tries of  the  divine  government,  which  must  rule  over  all  moral 
beings. 

2.  Fruitless  Endeavor  Toward  a  Rationale. — Many  attempts 
have  been  made  to  interpret  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  in 
the  light  of  reason  ;  that  is,  to  bring  it  within  the  grasp 
of  our  intelligence.  Our  own  view  is  that  all  such  at- 
tempts are  fruitless.  We  shall  notice  three  of  the  leading  modes 
in  which  such  interpretation  is  attempted. 

The  first  assumes  an  infinite  demerit  of  sin  ;  and  that  it  has 
INFINITE  DE-  such  dcmeHt  on  account  of  the  perfections  of  the  being 
MERIT  OF  SIN.  agalust  whom  it  is  committed.  Sin  is  committed  against 
an  infinite  being,  and  therefore  has  infinite  demerit.  Such  is  a 
summary  statement  of  the  view.  If  the  principle  be  true,  seem- 
ingly, it  must  equalize  all  sins,  which  is  neither  rational  nor  scrip- 
tural. Further,  we  may  posit  another  principle  :  Sin  is  the  deed 
of  a  finite  being,  and  therefore  can  have  only  finite  demerit.  And 
who  shall  say  that  the  former  is  any  clearer  than  the  latter  ?  In 
truth,  neither  has  any  solution  in  our  reason. 

Another  interpretation  is  attempted  on  the  ground  of  a  limitation 
NO  FUTURE  of  the  atonement  to  the  present  life.  As  there  is  no 
ATONEMENT.  savlug  gracc  in  a  future  state,  punishment  must  be 
eternal.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  new  principle  in  this  view.  In  the 
absence  of  atonement  there  could  still  be  no  such  punishment,  ex- 
cept on  the  ground  of  demerit.  Hence  we  are  brought  back  to  the 
very  principle  on  which  the  former  interpretation  is  attempted  ; 
and  in  this  new  relation  it  none  the  less  remains  beyond  the  grasp 
of  our  reason. 

The  rationale  is  often  attempted  on  the  ground  of  an  endless 
ENDLESS  SIN-  sinulng.  As  the  future  state  of  the  wicked  must  be 
NiNG.  Q,jg  qI  eternal  sinning,  so  their  punishment  must  be 

endless.  Such  is  the  doctrine.  It  may  seem  plausible,  but  is  not 
above  criticism. 

The  doctrine  assumes  a  moral  responsibility  of  the  wicked  in  a 
state  of  necessity  ;  for  such  must  be  the  state  of  final  retribution. 


FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.  469 

There  the  good  is  no  longer  possible,  and  the  evil,  such  as  it  may 
be,  is  unavoidable.  Can  there  be  moral  responsibility 
m  such  a  state  ?  Our  reason  cannot  affirm  it,  and  dkr  necks- 
therefore  cannot  thus  find  any  rational  interpretation  of  ^^^^' 
eternal  punishment.  A  fixed  state  of  reward  after  a  state  of  trial, 
whether  of  blessedness  or  misery,  must  be  constituted  in  a  manner 
peculiar  to  itself.  Just  what  it  is,  or  what  its  relation  to  moral 
law,  as  viewed  from  the  divine  side,  we  have  no  power  of  know- 
ing. Hence  there  is  no  explanation  of  eternal  punishment  in  this 
manner. 

Further,  this  attempted  rationale  begins  with  the  concession  that 
eternal  punishment  is  not  for  the  sins  of  this  life,  and 
that  they  do  not  deserve  it.  Yet  it  is  an  explicit  truth 
of  Scripture  that  such  punishment,  even  in  its  uttermost  duration, 
is  for  the  sins  of  this  life.  There  is  neither  mention  nor  intima- 
tion of  any  other.  Hence  the  theory  surrenders  the  scriptural 
ground  of  the  doctrine,  and  offers  instead  an  inferential  basis, 
which  for  our  reason  is  g,  mere  assumption. 

3.  Purely  a  Quef<f  ion  of  Revelation. — If  the  punishment  of  sin 
is  eternal  it  must  be  consistent  with  the  justice  and  goodness  of 
God ;  but  for  us  it  is  thus  consistent  only  through  faith,  not  in  the 
comprehension  of  our  reason. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  reason  is  equally  incompetent  to  pro- 
nounce against  eternal  punishment.  Government  in 
all  its  human  forms  is  replete  with  perplexities.  The 
gathered  experiences  of  the  ages  bring  us  no  solution.  A  chief 
perplexity  respects  the  use  of  penalty  as  a  necessary  means  of  gov- 
ernment. If  such,  then,  be  the  state  of  facts  with  us  in  all  the 
forms  of  human  government,  we  surely  cannot  determine  what 
shall  be  the  provisions  and  ministries  of  the  divine  government, 
the  sway  of  which  is  over  all  intelligences.  The  assumption  of  any 
such  ability  is  most  pretentious.  And  yet  the  man  who  finds  the 
government  of  his  little  boy  an  utter  perplexity  can  tell  you  just 
how  God  should  govern  the  moral  universe.  With  the  narrow 
limitations  of  our  own  knowledge  the  Scriptures  are  the  only 
sufficient  source  of  truth  respecting  the  duration  of  future  pun- 
ishment. 

4.  Obvious  Sense  of  Scrijyture. — The  principal  words  employed 
to  express  the  duration  of  the  doom  of  sin  are  alu)v  and  alojviog.  If 
sometimes  used  to  express  simply  a  very  long  future,  or  the  utmost 
duration  of  the  subject  to  which  they  are  applied,  their  proper 
meaning  is  an  endless  duration.  Such  it  is  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
Buch  in  their  application  to  future  punishment. 

32  • 


ABOVE  OIR 
REASON. 


4V0  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

These  are  the  words  by  which  the  Scriptures  express  the  eternal 
niTiNE  KTEK-  tMugs  of  God  ;^  of  Christ ;'  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' 
NiTY.  As  used  in  these  references  they  can  mean  nothing  less 

than  an  endless  future. 

The  same  words  are  employed  for  the  expression  of  the  future 
ENDLESS  HAP-  happlncss  of  the  righteous.''  No  one  who  accepts  the 
piNEss.  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures  ever  thinks  of  putting 

any  limitation  upon  the  future  blessedness  which  is  thus  set  forth 
in  the  use  of  these  words. 

The  solemn  truth  follows  that  future  punishment  is  expressed  in 
DURATION  OF  ^^^^  usc  of  tho  samc  words.  ^  In  none  of  these  instances 
PUNISHMENT,  [g  thcrc  any  intimation  of  a  qualified  sense  ;  hence  they 
must  here  mean  a  limitless  future.  This  meaning  is  emphasized, 
indeed,  unalterably  fixed,  by  the  association  of  future  happiness  and 
future  misery  in  the  same  texts.  Indeed,  while  in  one  we  have 
simply  the  word  life — ^w^v — as  expressive  of  future  happiness,  for 
the  expression  of  future  misery  we  have  the  words  ro  rrvp  to  alutviov, 
the  latter  meaning  an  eternal  duration."  In  another  the  same 
word — alo}viog — expresses  the  duration  of  both  the  happiness  of  the 
righteous  and  the  misery  of  the  lost.'  If  the  word  means  a  limit- 
less future  in  the  former  application,  such  must  be  its  meaning  in 
the  latter. 

Such  has  been  the  interpretation  of  these  words  through  all  the 
THE  CATHOLIC  Christiau  centuries,  and  such  the  interpretation  of 
DOCTRINE.  other  words  in  application  to  the  same  subject.  There 
have  been  differences  respecting  the  ground  of  amenability  to  such 
punishment ;  as,  for  instance,  whether  we  could  be  so  amenable  for 
the  sin  of  Adam,  or  on  the  ground  of  an  inherited  depravity  of 
nature,  or  whether  only  for  personal  sins,  committed  with  the 
responsibility  of  moral  freedom.  Also  there  have  been  differences 
respecting  the  nature  of  the  penal  doom.  The  materialistic  inter- 
pretation of  its  figurative  representations,  as  held  in  the  earlier 
centuries,  and  particularly  by  the  medieval  Church,  is  now  dis- 
carded and  replaced  by  a  more  rational  and  truthful  interpretation. 
But  through  all  these  differences  and  disputations  a  very  remarkable 

'  Eom.  i,  25  ;  ix,  5  ;  xi,  36  ;  2  Cor.  xi,  31 ;  Gal.  i,  5  ;  Phil,  iv,  20  ;  1  Tim.  i,  17  ; 
1  Pet.  V,  11. 

'  Luke  i,  33  ;  Heb.  i,  8  ;  xiii,  8  ;  2  Pet.  iii,  18  ;  Rev.  i,  18 ;  v,  13  ;  xi,  15. 

3  Heb.  ix,  14. 

*  Matt,  xix,  29;  xxv,  46;  Mark  x,  30;  John  iii,  15,  16,  36;  iv,  14;  vi,  51, 
58  ;  X,  28  ;  xi,  26  ;  Rom.  ii,  7  ;  2  Cor.  iv,  17  ;  ix,  9  ;  1  John  ii,  17. 

5  Matt,  xviii,  8  ;  xxi,  19 ;  xxv,  41,  46 ;  Mark  iii,  29 ;  2  Thess.  i,  9  ;  Heb. 
vi,  2  ;  2  Pet.  ii,  17  ;  Jiide  13  ;  Rev.  xiv,  11. 

''  Matt,  xviii,  8.  '  Matt,  xxv,  4G. 


FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 


471 


unanimity  has  remained  respecting  the  duration  of  such  punish- 
ment. On  this  question  the  best  scholarship  of  to-day  is  in  full 
accord  with  the  historic  doctrine  of  the  Churcli.  This  is  a  sig- 
nificant fact,  and  the  more  so  because  such  accordance  is  not  from 
any  predilection  or  preference,  but  simply  by  constraint  of  the 
plain  sense  of  Scripture. 


Hovey  :  The  State  of  the  Impenitent  Dead  ;  George  :  Annihilation  Not  of  the 
Bible ;  McDonald  :  The  Annihilation  of  the  Wicked  Scripturally  Considered  ; 
Underwood  :  Future  Punishment  ;  Anderson  :  Future  Destiny ;  Vernon  :  Pi'O- 
bation  and  Punishment;  Cochrane:  Future  Punishment;  Farrar :  Eternal 
Hope  ;  Future  Probation :  A  Symposium ;  Reimensnyder  :  Doom  Eternal  ; 
King:  Future  Retribution;  Jackson:  The  Doctrine  of  Retribution,  Bampton 
Lectures,  1875. 


472  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

FUTURE    BLESSEDNESS. 

Ik  Christian  thought  heaven  is  inseparably  associated  with  future 
blessedness  ;  indeed,  the  terms  are  often  used  in  the  same  sense.  For 
the  present,  however,  we  may  view  the  former  simply  as  the  place 
of  the  latter. 

I.  Heaven  a  Place. 

1.  Sense  of  Place. — We  here  use  the  word  place  in  its  most  lit- 
eral sense,  and  therefore  as  meaning  a  material  habitation,  and  as 
really  such  as  this  or  any  other  world.  In  the  view  of  some,  heaven 
is  a  state,  not  a  place.  On  the  ground  of  such  a  distinction  it  can 
have  no  position  nor  relation  with  respect  to  any  thing  material  or 
local.  It  is  difficult  to  form  any  conception  of  a  state  when  thus 
stripped  of  all  qualities  and  relations.  We  can  think  of  states  of 
things,  but  such  a  state  is  nothing  for  our  thought ;  indeed,  noth- 
ing in  fact. 

2.  Localism  of  Spiritual  Beings. — The  soul  has  a  present  mate- 
rial habitation  ;  a  fact  which  cannot  be  questioned,  however  myste- 
rious it  may  be  for  our  thought.  Further,  the  fact  shows  a  capacity 
in  spiritual  beings  for  localization  ;  for  the  mere  form  of  the  body 
in  which  the  soul  now  dwells  cannot  be  essential  to  such  localism. 
Hence  there  is  for  us,  even  irrespective  of  the  resurrection,  the 
capability  for  a  future  material  habitation.  Even  God,  the  infinite 
Spirit,  localizes  himself,  that  finite  spirits  may  have  the  higher 
privilege  of  communion  with  him.  If  it  be  said  that  this  localiza- 
tion is  only  relative,  it  may  be  replied  that  it  is  such  as  answers  its 
purpose  ;  and,  further,  while  we  know  the  localization  of  finite 
spirits  as  a  fact,  we  know  nothing  of  its  mode.  For  our  thought  the 
latter  is  as  profound  a  mystery  as  the  former. 

Philosophic  thought  denies  to  purely  spiritual  being  all  spacial 
qualities  ;  still  for  such  thought  ubiety  is  inseparable  from  the  no- 
tion of  finite  spirits.  If  in  social  relation,  a  proper  localism  is  a 
necessity  ;  and  such  is  eminently  the  relation  of  angels  and  glorified 
saints. 

3.  Requirement  of  the  Resurrection. — The  resurrection  body, 
however  transformed  and  glorified,  will  still  be  material ;  and  it  is 
out  of  accord  with  both  reason  and  Scripture,  that  the    glorified 


FUTURE  BLESSEDNESS.  473 

saints,  with  the  investment  of  such  bodies,  should  dwell  apart  or 
wander  separately  in  the  infinite  spaces,  each  finding  his  heaven  in 
the  solitude  of  his  own  consciousness  ;  and  equally  out  of  accord 
with  both,  tliat,  if  gatliered  into  a  heavenly  fellowship,  they  should 
be  afloat  in  the  empty  space,  without  any  real  world  around  or  be- 
neath tlicm.  Finite  spirits,  with  a  material  investment  and  dwell- 
ing in  fellowship,  must  have  a  local  habitation. 

4.  Pervasive  Sense  of  Scripture. — The  Scriptures  ever  repre- 
sent heaven  as  a  place.  This  is  so  plain  a  fact  that  it  hardly  needs 
any  illustration.  Our  Lord  represented  it  as  a  place  or  mansion  in 
his  Father's  house  ; '  St.  Paul,  as  a  building  of  God,  a  house  not 
made  Avith  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens.^  Again,  it  is  the  tem- 
ple of  God,  the  place  of  his  throne  and  glory  ; '  and  a  great  city, 
the  holy  Jerusalem."  No  doubt  these  are  figurative  representations 
of  heaven  ;  but  that  does  not  aifect  the  underlying  reality  of  place. 

5.  Location  of  Heaven. — Not  a  few  hold  the  theory  of  a  mun- 
dane location   of  heaven,  and   among  them  are  great 

A  1     •        O       '•     4.  •  1     •  J   4?  4-1    •  •  ^'^'^  MUNDANE. 

names.  A  ground  m  bcnj)ture  is  claimed  tor  this  view, 
though  we  think  the  texts  adduced  in  its  support  very  far  short  of 
conclusive.  Proof  is  sought  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul  respecting 
the  creature — //  Krioiq — which  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  but 
waits  for  a  glorious  transformation.^  There  are  weighty  objections 
to  such  a  use  of  the  passage.  It  is,  by  common  consent,  a  very  ob- 
scure one ;  too  obscure,  indeed,  to  be  made  the  ground  of  any  par- 
ticular theory.  Further,  any  exegetical  authority  for  the  applica- 
tion of  the  original  word  to  the  physical  world  is  fully  balanced  by 
an  adverse  authority.  Finally,  even  granting  such  an  application, 
it  Avould  not  follow  that  the  earth  shall  be  the  future  home  of  the 
saints.  In  other  texts  it  is  shown  that,  after  a  dissolution  or  pass- 
ing away  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  there  shall  be  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth,*  but  without  any  proof  that  the  latter  shall  be  a 
reconstruction  of  the  former  ;  certainly  without  any  that  this  world 
shall  thus  be  constituted  the  future  heaven  of  the  righteous. 

The  clear  sense  of  Scripture  is  against  an  earthly  location  of 
heaven.  As  Christ  approached  the  time  of  his  depart-  clear  sense 
ure  he  spoke  to  his  disciples  of  his  Father's  house  and  of  scripture. 
its  many  mansions,  and  assured  them  that  he  was  going  to  prepare 
a  place  for  them,  and  that  he  would  come  again  and  receive  them 
unto  himself  where  he  is.'  These  facts  must  mean  that  the  future 
heaven  shall  be  other  than  this  earth,  and  far  away  from  it.  Such 
meaning  is  placed  beyond  question  by  the   collocation  of  three 

'  John  xiv,  1-3.  ^  3  Cor.  v,  1.         '  Rev.  vii,  9-17.         *  Rev.  xxi,  10. 

^  Rom.  viii,  19-21.         «  3  Pet.  iii,  10-13  ;  Rev.  xxi,  1-4.         ^  John  xiv,  1-3. 
33 


474  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

verses  :  **  And  now,  0  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self 
with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was.'' 
"  And  now  I  am  no  more  in  the  world,  but  these  are  in  the  world, 
and  I  come  to  thee."  "Father,  I  will  that  they  also,  whom  thou 
hast  given  me,  be  with  me  where  I  am." '  Whither  Christ  ascended 
to  be  glorified  with  the  Father,  there  shall  his  disciples  be  with 
him,  and  there  is  heaven.  Surely,  then,  it  cannot  have  an  earthly 
location.  Beyond  these  facts  we  know  nothing  of  that  location ; 
nor  are  we  concerned  to  know  any  thing  more.  Heaven  is  what  it 
is  in  itself  and  in  the  elements  of  blessedness,  wholly  irrespective 
of  its  location. 

II.  Blessedness  of  Heavejst. 

1.  Beauty  of  the  Place. — The  many  orders  of  sentient  existence 
are  furnished  with  homes  according  to  their  gradations.  This  is 
the  rule  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest ;  so  that,  the  higher  the 
grade,  the  larger  and  better  the  habitation.  Man  has  his  home 
under  the  same  law ;  in  the  same  world,  indeed,  but  larger  and 
more  richly  furnished  than  that  of  any  lower  order,  according  to 
his  vastly  higher  endowments.  His  Edenic  home,  as  God  pre- 
pared and  adorned  it  for  him  as  the  place  of  his  probationary  trial, 
was  far  more  beautiful  than  his  present  home.  What  then  must 
be  the  future  home  of  the  children  of  God  !  It  is  reasonable  to 
think  that  its  beauty  and  grandeur  will  correspond  with  their  own 
glorification.  More  than  this,  heaven  is  the  home  of  the  angels 
and  God ;  the  home  of  the  glorified  Son.  If,  therefore,  heaven 
shall  correspond,  as  it  must,  with  the  character  of  its  inhabitants,  it 
must  be  of  inconceivable  beauty  and  grandeur.  Revelation  portrays 
it  in  the  use  of  the  finest  imagery  which  the  mind  can  command, 
but  the  reality  must  infinitely  transcend  all  such  picturing. 

2.  Elements  of  Blessedness. — The  holiness  of  heaven  means  the 
absence  of  all  that  could  mar  its  beauty  or  disturb  its  joy.  In  the 
absence  of  sin  this  world  would  still  be  as  the  garden  of  Eden. 
There  will  be  no  sin  in  heaven  ;  hence,  none  of  the  miseries  which 
inevitably  spring  from  its  presence,  but  the  pleasures  which  must 
ever  flow  from  the  perfection  of  holiness. 

Immortality  is  the  heritage  of  the  saints  in  heaven.  '^  Neither 
can  they  die  any  more  :  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels;  and 
are  the  children  of  God,  being  the  children  of  the  resurrection."* 
*'  And  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  their  eyes ;  and  there 
shall  be  no  more  death,  neither  sorrow,  nor  crying,  neither  shall 
there  be  any  more  pain  :  for  the  former  things  are  passed  away." ' 
'  John  xvii,  5,  11.  24.  ^  Ij^^q  ^x,  36.  '  Eev.  xxi,  4, 


FUTURE  BLESSEDNESS.  475 

The  intellectual  life  of  heaven  must  infinitely  transcend  the  at- 
tainments of  the  present  life.  The  mental  powers  will  there  be 
free  from  many  present  limitations.  In  the  new  conditions  they 
must  have  large  development.  There  is  no  apparent  reason  why 
they  should  not  have  a  perpetual  growth.  Certainly  they  will  be 
capable  of  a  perpetual  acquisition  of  knowledge,  and  a  universe  of 
truth  will  be  open  to  their  research.  Many  problems,  now  dark 
and  perplexing,  will  there  be  solved.  The  ceaseless  pursuit  and 
acquisition  of  knowledge  through  all  the  realms  of  truth  will  be  a 
ceaseless  fountain  of  pleasure. 

Heaven  will  be  replete  with  loving  fellowships  and  holy  worship. 
The  imperfections  which  so  often  mar  our  present  social  life,  even 
in  its  most  spiritual  forms,  will  have  no  place  in  those  fellowships. 
There  love  shall  be  supreme.  Through  the  headship  of  Christ 
saints  and  angels  shall  form  a  happy  brotherhood.  Yet  the  saints 
will  have  a  song  and  a  joy  which  the  angels  can  share  only  by  the 
power  of  sympathy — the  song  of  redemption  and  the  Joy  of  salva- 
tion. Holy  love  will  make  all  duty  a  holy  delight.  The  heavenly 
worship,  kindled  by  the  immediate  presence  and  open  vision  of 
God  and  the  Lamb,  shall  be  full  of  holy  rapture. 

In  such  a  life,  with  powers  ever  growing  and  a  future  ever  in 
hope,  the  blessedness  of  heaven  will  be  complete. 

Harbaugh  :  The  Heavenly  Home  ;  Thompson  :  The  Better  Land  ;  Plummer  : 
The  Resurrection  of  the  Just  and  their  Condition  in  a  Future  State ;  Spicer  : 
The  Spirit  Life  and  its  Relations  ;  Hamilton :  Beyond  the  Stars ;  or,  Heaven, 
its  Inhabitants,  Occupations,  and  Life  ;  Bates :  The  Four  Last  Things,  Death, 
Judgment,  Heaven,  Hell ;  Watts :  The  World  to  Come ;  Pike  :  Religion  and 
Eternal  Life  ;  or,  Irreligion  and  Feipetual  Ruin ;  Taylor  :  Physical  Theoi^  of 
Another  Life  ;  Dick  :  The  Fhilosophy  of  a  Future  State  ;  Welby  :  Mysteries  of 
Life,  Death,  and  Futurity  ;  Stewart  and  Tait :  The  Unseen  Universe  ;  or.  Physi- 
cal Speculations  on  a  Future  State  ;  Oxenham  :  Catholic  Eschatology  and  Uni- 
versalism;  Strong:  The  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life. 


APPENDICES,. 


APPKNDICKS. 


I. 

INSPIRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES, 
i,    1. 

The  question  of  inspiration  concerns  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  authorship  of  the  Scriptures.  What  was  that  agency  ? 
The  true  answer  to  this  question  must  give  us  the  true  doctrine  of 
inspiration. 

The  fact  of  such  an  agency  we  accept  on  the  ground  of  the 
Scriptures.  In  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  a  divine  original 
of  the  truths  set  forth  is  often  asserted.  Further,  both  Christ  and 
his  apostles  witness  to  the  divine  authorship  of  those  books.  Also, 
in  the  New  Testament  there  are  both  the  promise  and  the  open 
profession  of  an  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  With  this  state- 
ment of  the  fact  Ave  proceed  with  the  doctrine. 

Not  a  few  have  attempted  a  proper  distinction  between  inspira- 
tion and  revelation  ;  and  the  question  seems  to  have 

'  ^    _  ,  INSPIRATION 

been  regarded  as  one  of  perplexity.  We  must  think  andrevkla- 
that  such  perplexity  arises  only  from  a  lack  of  thorough  "^^" 
analysis.  For  the  same  reason,  in  many  instances,  the  true  distinc- 
tion has  not  been  made.  The  true  and  simple  view  is,  that  inspira- 
tion is  a  mode  of  the  divine  agency  in  the  communication  of 
religious  truth,  and  that  such  truth  is  the  product  of  the  inspira- 
tion. Now,  if  we  restrict  revelation  to  the  literal  sense  of  the  term, 
that  is,  a  disclosure  of  unknown  truths,  and  as  here  meaning  such 
truths  of  religion  as  we  receive  only  through  the  Scriptures,  the 
same  distinction  between  inspiration  and  revelation  fully  remains  ; 
and  such  is  the  only  true  distinction.  But  there  may  be  a  revela- 
tion through  some  other  mode  of  the  divine  agency,  as,  for  instance, 
the  oral  teaching  of  our  Lord  ;  and  in  such  case  there  must  be  the 
same  distinction  between  such  agency  and  revelation  as  the  product. 
There  is  as  much  need  of  a  proper  distinction  be-  inspiration 
tween  inspiration  and  the  Scriptures  as  between  inspira-  and  thk 
tion  and  revelation.  If  we  restrict  revelation  to  the 
literal  sense  of  the  term,  and  particularly  to  religious  truths  super- 


480  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

naturally  made  known,  it  is  much  narrower  than  the  Scriptures, 
because  they  contain  many  things  which  were  naturally  known  by  the 
sacred  writers.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  restrict  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit  in  inspiration  to  the  supernatural  truths  which  the  Scriptures 
contain.  When  that  agency  is  properly  interpreted  in  its  several 
modes  we  shall  find  a  place  for  it,  in  some  mode,  in  all  the  contents 
of  the  Scriptures.  We  do  not  except  even  the  oral  teachings  of  our 
Lord.  The  sacred  writers  needed  such  help  of  the  Spirit  that  they 
might  give  these  lessons  to  the  world  in  a  truthful  and  authoritative 
form.  And  our  Lord  himself  definitely  promised  them  such  help 
for  this  very  service. '  But  as  inspiration  is  thus  common  to  all  the 
Scriptures,  there  is  still  the  same  distinction  between  such  agency 
and  its  product. 

Whatever  the  theory  of  inspiration,  it  is  clearly  the  sense  of  the 
Scriptiires  that  there  was  a  special  agency  of  the  Spirit 
CY  OF  THE  in  their  authorship.  It  is  thus  discriminated  from 
SPIRIT.  other  offices  of  the  Spirit  in  the  illumination  and  re- 

generation of  men  ;  in  the  Christian  life  of  believers  ;  in  the  effect- 
ive ministry  of  the  Gospel.  These  offices  are  directly  in  the  interest 
of  personal  salvation,  not  for  the  original  communication  of  truth. 
In  inspiration  the  definite  purpose  is  an  authoritative  communi- 
cation of  truth  from  God,  whether  by  the  spoken  or  written  word. 

For  the  purpose  of  a  revelation  there  must  be  an  immediate 
AN  IMMEDIATE  opcratlou  of  the  Spirit  in  the  mind  of  the  mediate 
AGENCY.  agent.     The  fact  is  the  same  whether  the  operation  is 

to  prepare  the  mind  for  the  reception  of  the  truth,  or  for  the  com- 
munication of  the  truth  to  the  prepared  mind,  or  for  its  guidance 
in  the  publication  of  the  truth.  An  immediate  agency  is  not  pecul- 
iar to  this  office  of  the  Spirit,  but  is  common  to  all  his  offices  in  the 
work  of  our  personal  salvation,  whether  of  conviction,  regeneration, 
assurance,  or  guidance  and  help  in  the  Christian  life.  Such  is  the 
fact,  whatever  the  exterior  means.  There  is  such  an  agency  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

As  the  purpose  of  this  inspiration  is  definite,  it  must  be  special 
SPECIAL  TO  ^^  some,  not  common  to  the  many.  The  recipients 
SOME.  must  fulfill  a  special  office  in  the  divine  revelation.     A 

consideration  of  the  functions  of  this  office  belongs  to  the  question 
of  theories  of  insiairation.  A  proper  human  agency  is  entirely 
consistent  with  the  divine  agency.  An  immediate  agency  of 
the  Spirit  is  not  necessarily  absolute,  and  hence  may  give  place 
for  the  agency  of  the  inspired  mind  in  the  conscious  use  of  its  own 
faculties. 

'  John  xiv,  26. 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  481 


I.  Threefold  Operation  of  the  Spirit. 

In  the  operations  of  the  human  mind  a  possession  of  the  truth 
must  precede  its  expression,  whether  by  voice  or  pen.  But  truth 
is  not  native  to  the  mind,  and,  as  a  possession,  must  in  some  way 
be  acquired.  For  a  knowledge  of  many  higher  truths,  however  ac- 
quired, there  must  be  a  mental  preparation.  There  are  such  requi- 
sites for  the  mediate  agency  of  the  human  mind  in  a  divine  revelation. 
Whatever  its  preparation,  there  is  no  power  for  the  discovery  of  the 
higher  truths  of  Scripture,  nor  for  such  an  expression  of  them  as 
shall  give  them  authority  and  value  as  a  revelation.  Hence  there 
must  be  a  threefold  operation  of  the  Spirit,  answering  to  the  three 
necessary  spheres  of  the  mediate  human  agency,  in  order  to  a  divine 
revelation.  If  there  is  not  the  full  requirement  for  every  part  and 
particular  of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  yet  real  and  full  for  the  higher 
truths  of  religion.  Their  publication  through  a  mediate  human 
agency,  intelligently  active  in  itself,  could  not  otherwise  be  achieved. 
This  threefold  operation  of  the  Spirit  should  be  more  definitely 
treated  in  its  several  facts. 

1.  Illumination  of  the  Mediate  Agent. — The  first  necessary  office 
of  the  Spirit  is  that  of  mental  illumination.  Such  illumination  is 
a  familiar  idea  of  Scripture.  As  a  part  of  inspiration,  the  operation 
may  be  similar  to  that  of  Christ  when  he  opened  the  minds  of  his  dis- 
ciples that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures.'  They  were  thus 
enabled  to  understand  truths  previously  revealed.  In  like  manner 
there  must  be  a  divine  illumination  of  the  mediate  agents  of  revela- 
tion for  the  proper  reception  and  apprehension  of  its  truths.  With- 
out such  a  quickening  of  their  mental  powers  and  clearing  of  their 
spiritual  vision  they  must  have  been  without  capacity  for  the  higher 
truths  of  religion,  and  hence  without  ability  for  their  proper  publi- 
cation. 

3.  Communication  of  the  Truth. — When  the  mind  was  thus  pre- 
pared for  the  reception  of  divine  truth  this  truth  itself  was  still 
to  be  given.  The  higher  truths  of  religion  are  not  an  immediate 
cognition  even  of  the  illuminated  mind,  nor  within  the  reach  of  its 
own  powers.  The  illumination  raises  these  powers  to  a  higher  re- 
ceptive capacity,  but  it  neither  changes  the  law  of  their  action  nor 
adds  any  new  faculty.  Hence  there  are  many  truths  of  Scripture 
which  they  could  neither  originate  nor  discover.  Such  truths  must 
be  directly  communicated  in  order  to  their  publication.  This  com- 
munication is  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  inspiration.     Such 

'  Luke  xxiv,  45. 


482  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

was  the  source  of  prophetic  vision  and  utterance.  The  divine  Mas- 
ter, just  before  his  departure,  promised  a  mission  of  the  Spirit  to 
his  disciples,  who  should  teach  them  all  things,  and  bring  to  their 
remembrance  the  truths  which  he  had  spoken.'  He  also  promised 
that  in  the  exigency  of  their  arraignment  before  magistrates  the 
Holy  Spirit  should  teach  them  in  the  same  hour  what  they  should 
say.^  Some  of  these  deliverances  have  gone  into  the  Scriptures  as 
a  part  of  the  divine  revelation.  These  special  facts  may  illustrate 
the  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  the  communication  of  truth  to  the 
agents  through  whom  it  should  be  published. 

3.  Agency  in  the  Publicatioti. — The  truth  as  thus  given  is  a 
purely  personal  possession.  Even  if  a  revelation  to  the  recipients 
it  is  not  such  to  others,  nor  can  it  be  until  its  proper  publication. 
Hence,  for  the  purpose  of  a  revelation  there  is  this  third  sphere  of 
inspiration.  The  publication  of  truth  is  a  distinct  fact  from  both 
its  reception  and  possession.  The  expression  of  truth  concerns 
the  truth  itself.  It  deeply  concerns  the  truths  of  Scripture  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  should  have  been  co-operative  in  their  expression 
or  publication.  There  was  such  an  agency.'  It  was  as  requisite 
and  as  real  for  the  written  as  for  the  spoken  word.  As  inspired 
men  were  moved  and  guided  in  writing  the  Scriptures,  so,  and  only 
thus,  are  they  a  divine  revelation. 

4.  Inspiration  as  the  Requirement. — There  was  not  a  require- 
ment for  the  same  agency  of  the  Spirit  respecting  all  parts  of  the 
Scriptures.  Even  without  any  distinction  as  to  the  importance  of 
some  parts  as  compared  with  others,  there  is  still  a  wide  distinction 
as  it  respects  their  relation  to  the  minds  of  the  sacred  writers.  In 
every  book  there  is  more  or  less  which  the  author  could  know 
through  the  ordinary  modes  of  knowledge,  and  which  also  was 
fully  within  the  command  of  his  own  powers.  In  such  case  there 
was  no  need  of  either  the  illuminative  or  the  communicatory  office 
of  the  Spirit ;  yet  there  was  need  of  such  an  agency  as  should  de- 
termine what  should  go  into  the  Scriptures.  While,  therefore, 
there  is  a  place  for  inspiration  in  all  parts  of  the  Scriptures,  the 
threefold  offices  of  the  Spirit  were  necessary  only  with  respect  to 
their  higher  truths. 

II.  Erroneous  Theories  of  In-spiration". 

So  far,  we  have  treated  inspiration  mainly  as  a  fact  and  as  to  its 
modes,  and  the  question  of  theory  or  doctrine  chiefly  remains. 
Preparatory  to  the  direct  treatment  of  this  question  we  notice  a 
few  erroneous  theories. 

'  John  xiv,  26.  -  Luke  xii,  11,  12.  '2  Pet.  i,  21. 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  483 

1.  Tnspiratio7i  of  Genius. — It  is  only  in  a  qualified  sense  that 
genius  can  be  called  an  inspiration.  There  is  in  it  a  special  power 
of  insight  and  originality,  but  it  is  still  only  a  human  power. 
Poetic  genius  is  creative  in  the  sphere  of  the  ideal,  but  is  without 
any  special  originative  power  in  the  sphere  of  religious  truth. 
The  poets  have  given  us  no  divine  theology.  Homer  and  Virgil 
rise  not  above  the  religious  thought  of  their  time.  Neither  Milton 
nor  Dante  lifts  us  into  brighter  skies.  Plato  was  a  genius  in  relig- 
ious as  in  philosophic  thought,  but  his  theology  is  infinitely  below 
that  of  John.  The  higher  truths  of  Scripture  could  not  originate 
in  any  inspiration  of  genius.  Were  this  even  possible,  they  would 
still  lack  the  certainty  and  authority  necessary  to  their  special  re- 
ligious value. 

•^.  Special  Religious  Consciousness. — There  are  instances  of  a 
specially  intense  and  clear  religious  consciousness  ;  but  without 
divine  inspiration  its  capacity  is  only  human.  Such  a  conscious- 
ness might  be  very  receptive  of  inspiration,  or  of  religious  truth 
communicated  from  without,  but  could  not  be  specially  originative 
of  such  truth.  The  higher  truths  of  Scripture  could  neither  orig- 
inate in  such  a  mind  nor  receive  from  it  their  necessary  certainty 
and  authority. 

3.  Illumination  and  Elevation. — In  this  view  the  office  of  inspi- 
ration is  fulfilled  in  the  spiritual  illumination  and  elevation  of  cer- 
tain chosen  minds.  These  terms,  however,  do  not  express  really 
distinct  offices  of  the  Spirit,  though  sometimes  distinctively  used. 
Such  a  divine  illumination  of  the  mind  must  quicken  its  powers 
and  clear  its  vision  ;  and  in  this  there  is  spiritual  elevation.  The 
same  divine  operation  answers  for  both.  But  the  defects  of  the 
theory  are  obvious.  It  answers  for  the  preparation  of  the  mind 
for  the  reception  of  the  higher  truths  of  religion,  and  hence  con- 
tains so  much  of  a  true  doctrine.  This  element  we  have  previously 
recognized  as  necessary.  But  there  is  no  provision  for  either  the 
communication  or  the  publication  of  the  truth.  The  mediate 
agent  is  left  to  his  own  resources,  simply  with  the  advantage  of  a 
subjective  illumination.  This  is  utterly  insufficient  both  for  a 
knowledge  of  the  higher  truths  of  Scripture  and  for  their  trust- 
worthy publication. 

4.  Divine  Superintetidetice. — The  idea  is  of  an  influence  of  the 
Spirit  within  the  minds  of  the  sacred  writers  which  preserved  them 
from  serious  error  in  teaching,  and  also  secured  through  their 
agency  a  record  of  such  facts  and  truths  of  religion  as  were  impor- 
tant to  be  known.  There  is  here  one  element  of  a  true  theory  of 
inspiration,  as  we  have  previously  explained.     It  might  be  so  con- 


484  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

strued  as  to  eeem  sufficient  for  the  whole  truth,  but  does  not  really 
admit  of  such  an  interpretation.  If  so  intended,  there  is  an  un- 
necessary caution  in  the  use  of  terms.  If  the  facts  of  a  true  and 
sufficient  inspiration  are  held,  it  is  far  better  to  use  terms  clearly 
expressive  of  the  whole  truth.  This  theory  is  really  lower  in  some 
of  its  facts  than  the  one  just  previously  noticed.  It  makes  no  pro- 
vision for  the  necessary  illumination  of  the  mediate  agent.  Nor 
does  it  provide  for  the  supernatural  communication  of  the  truth, 
but  leaves  him  to  his  own  resources  of  discovery.  It  is  halting 
and  indefinite  as  to  a  sufficient  divine  guidance  in  the  publication 
of  the  truth. 

5.  The  Mechanical  Theory. — This  is  the  theory  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion. The  divine  agency  monergistically  determines  both  the  ideas 
and  the  words,  while  the  mediate  human  agency  is  a  mere  passive 
instrument.  If  the  very  words  are  thus  mechanically  determined, 
so  must  the  ideas  be  determined.  Such  an  inspiration  must  thor- 
oughly dominate  the  mediate  agent  and  deprive  him  of  all  mental 
self-action.  Further,  there  must  be  the  same  determining  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  for  the  whole  Bible  ;  the  same  for  the  most  inci- 
dental and  familiar  facts  of  history  and  personal  experience  as  for 
the  profoundest  mysteries  of  revelation  ;  the  same  for  the  friendly 
salutations  of  Paul  as  for  the  deepest  and  most  vital  moral  and 
religious  truths  of  his  epistles. 

The  theory  of  a  common  verbal  inspiration  is  beset 
with  very  serious  difficulties — enough,  indeed,  to  dis- 
prove it.     We  notice  a  few. 

The  theory  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  manifest  human  ele- 
THE  HUMAN  mcut  lu  thc  structurc  of  the  Scriptures.  Such  an 
ELEMENT.  elcmcut  is  pervasive  of  the  whole.     The  mental  cast  and 

culture,  the  peculiar  temper  and  style  of  each  sacred  writer  are 
wrought  into  his  composition.  These  facts  are  as  real  and  obvious 
in  the  Scriptures  as  in  any  purely  secular  writings.  They  cannot 
be  explained  except  on  the  ground  of  the  proper  mental  agency  of 
the  sacred  writers.  While  divinely  inspired  they  must  still  have 
been  in  the  possession  and  conscious  use  of  their  own  faculties. 
With  such  personal  agency  they  could  not  have  been  the  subjects  of 
an  inspiration  which  reduced  them  to  the  passivity  of  mere  instru- 
ments. 

There  are  differences  of  Scripture  statement  which  the  mechan- 
DiFFERENCEs  ical  thcory  can  neither  account  for  nor  reconcile  with 
OF  STATEMENT,  itsclf .  Different  writers  state  the  same  things  with  ver- 
bal differences.  We  may  instance  so  definite  a  thing  as  the  inscrip- 
tion on  the  cross.     There  are  four  statements  of  its  form  :  "  This 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  485 

is  Jesus,  the  King  of  the  Jews;'"  **  The  King  of  the  Jews;"* 
"  This  is  the  King  of  the  Jews;" '  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King 
of  the  Jews."  '  The  differences  are  slight,  but  real.  The  verbal 
theory  cannot  account  for  them  ;  certainly  not  on  any  reasonable 
ground.  Hence,  on  the  acceptance  of  that  theory,  we  should  have 
to  reject  at  least  three  of  these  statements  as  lacking  either  in  in- 
spiration or  in  textual  integrity  ;  and  with  the  further  consequence 
of  entire  uncertainty  as  to  which  account,  if  any  one,  consisted  of 
inspired  and  true  words.  Such  instances  of  variation,  of  which 
there  are  many,  are  quite  indifferent  to  a  real  and  sufficient  inspi- 
ration, but  utterly  inexplicable  on  the  verbal  theory. 

The  logic  of  the  theory  must  deny  the  present  and  future  posses- 
sion of  a  divine  revelation.  It  requires  for  such  a  reve-  revklation 
lation  the  determining  inspiration  of  the  very  words  of  kxcludkd. 
Scripture.  If  this  be  necessary,  then  only  an  exact  set  of  words,  and 
the  very  words  originally  inspired,  can  constitute  a  revelation.  But 
they  are  not  in  our  possession.  The  autographs  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ers no  longer  exist.  The  most  trustworthy  versions  and  manu- 
scripts are  without  exact  verbal  agreement.  The  most  learned  in 
the  question  are  not  always  agreed  as  to  the  true  text.  Further,  the 
great  multitudes  of  the  race  must  always  be  dependent  upon  trans- 
lations, which  cannot  be  the  exact  verbal  equivalents  of  the  originals. 
These  facts  are  entirely  indifferent  to  a  real  and  sufficient  inspira- 
tion ;  but  on  the  verbal  theory  they  deny  us  the  possession  of  a 
revelation. 

Nothing  can  be  necessary  to  a  divine  revelation  which  is  not 
necessary  to  a  truthful  expression  of  the  divine  mind. 
Neither  a  common  verbal  inspiration  nor  an  exact  and  for  a  revk- 
fixed  set  of  words  is  so  necessary.  This  is  manifest  in  '-'^■^'°''- 
the  fact  that  the  Scriptures,  just  as  other  writings,  would  admit 
verbal  changes  without  affecting  the  sense.  Facts  of  Scripture  are 
conclusive  against  that  necessity.  Such  are  the  differences  in  the 
statements  of  the  same  events  and  truths.  Such  also  is  the  fact 
that  when  Christ  and  his  apostles  referred  to  the  Scriptures  as  the 
word  of  God  and  of  divine  authority  they  often  had  in  view  the 
Septuagint  version,  which  is  far  from  being  a  literal  rendering  of 
the  Hebrew.  There  is  this  further  decisive  fact,  that  their  Script- 
ure citations  were  often  from  the  same  version,  and  without  any  at- 
tempt at  exact  verbal  accuracy. 

Still,  it  need  not  be  questioned  that  sometimes  inspiration  was 

such  as  to  determine  the  very  words  of  Scripture.     Yet  it  is  not 

important  that  we  be  able  to  identify  such  instances.     The  assertion 

'  Matt,  xxvii,  37.         '^  Mark  xv,  26.         =  Luke  xxiii,  38.         •*  John  xix,  19. 
33 


486  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

of  such  importance  would  concede  a  superior  excellence  to  such  in- 
stances of  inspiration.  We  should  thus  discriminate  against  the 
more  common  mode,  and  also  return  to  the  necessity  for  an  exact 
set  of  words,  with  all  its  insuperable  difficulties. 

III.  The  Dynamical  Theory. 

1.  Sense  of  the  Tlieory. — There  is  a  supernatural  operation  of 
the  Spirit  within  the  consciousness  and  appropriate  faculties  of  the 
mediate  agent,  yet  not  such  as  reduces  him  to  the  office  of  a  mere 
instrument.  He  remains  self-conscious  and  personally  active  in 
the  use  of  his  own  faculties.  Yet  through  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  he  is  so  enlightened  and  possessed  of  the  truth,  and  so  guided 
in  its  expression,  that  the  truth  so  given  forth,  whether  by  the 
spoken  or  written  word,  is  from  God.  Through  this  agency  the 
true  and  sufficient  authorship  of  the  Scriptures  is  with  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

2.  Place  for  the  Human  Element. — We  previously  noted  this 
manifest  element  in  the  construction  of  the  Scriptures,  and  also 
pointed  out  its  irreconcilable  contrariety  to  the  theory  of  a  common 
verbal  inspiration.  The  dynamical  theory  gives  a  proper  place  to 
this  element,  yet  in  a  sense  entirely  consistent  with  such  an  inspi- 
ration as  secures  to  the  Holy  Spirit  the  proper  authorship  of  th-e 
Scriptures. 

3.  Clear  of  Serious  Difficulty. — This  theory  avoids  the  insuper- 
able difficulties  of  a  common  verbal  inspiration,  as  previously  noted. 
Nor  are  there  others  of  trying  force.  Surely  there  is  none  in  the 
notion  of  such  an  agency  of  the  Spirit  as  the  theory  alleges,  real  and 
sufficient  as  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  a  divine  revelation.  If  any 
finite  mind  is  within  the  reach  of  an  immediate  divine  influence,  the 
human  soul,  made  in  the  image  of  God,  must  be  open  to  his  inspi- 
ration. Otherwise,  he  never  has  exerted,  and  never  could  exert,  any 
direct  influence  upon  a  single  soul  to  enlighten  and  quicken  it,  to 
renew  and  lift  it  up,  to  guide  and  help  it  in  the  moral  exigencies  of 
life.  Then,  while  through  some  means  God  might  still  speak  to 
the  ear  or  symbolize  truth  to  the  eye,  he  could  not  by  any  immedi- 
ate interior  influence  open  the  mind  for  the  reception  of  truth,  or 
communicate  truth  to  it,  or  make  it  the  mediate  agent  of  truth  to 
others.  Such  an  implication  of  divine  impotence  accords  with  a 
denial  of  the  divine  personality,  but  can  have  no  place  in  a  scheme 
of  truth  grounded  in  Christian  theism. 

4.  Sufficient  for  a  Revelation. — The  Scriptures  are  as  really  a 
divine  revelation  on  this  theory  as  they  could  be  on  that  of  verbal 
inspiration.     This  can  be  true,  and  is  true,  because  an  exact  set  of 


INSPIRATION  OP  THE  SCRIPTURES.  487 

words,  dictated  by  the  Spirit,  is  not  necessary  either  to  the  truthful 
expression  of  the  divine  mind  or  to  the  divine  authorship  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  sufficiency  of  the  theory  is  manifest  as  we  group 
its  facts.  Through  an  interior  ilhimination  the  Holy  Spirit  prepared 
the  minds  of  the  mediate  agents  for  the  reception  of  divine  truth, 
and  then  communicated  the  necessary  truth  to  them,  and  finally  so 
directed  them  as  to  secure  a  proper  expression  of  this  truth,  and  also 
the  selection  and  use  of  such  other  truths  as  miglit  be  proper  for 
the  Scriptures.  These  facts  meet  all  the  requirements  of  a  divine 
revelation,  and  determine  the  truths  so  uttered  to  be  in  a  very  pro- 
found sense  the  word  of  God. 

IV.  Inspiration  and  the  Scriptures. 

1.  Fact  of  Inspiration  from  the  Scrijitures. — The  divine  agency 
is  as  really  supernatural  in  inspiration  as  in  a  miracle  ;  but,  how- 
ever manifest  in  the  consciousness  of  the  inspired  mind,  it  is  not 
open  to  the  observation  of  others.  Hence,  our  only  direct  knowl- 
edge of  inspiration,  as  a  specific  form  of  the  divine  agency  for 
the  definite  purpose  of  a  revelation,  is  from  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves. 

2.  Not  a  Credential  of  the  Sacred  Writers. — If  we  should  at- 
tempt to  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  from  their  own 
statements,  and  then,  that  they  are  a  divine  revelation  because  in- 
spired, our  argument  would  move  in  a  circle,  and  hence  bring  no 
logical  result.  Such  is  a  rather  common  fallacy,  and  one  far  more 
harmful  than  helpful  to  the  truth. 

It  is  only  with  such  a  fallacy  that  inspiration  can  be  classed  as  a 
credential  of  revelation.  The  sacred  writers  must  be  divinely  ac- 
credited before  their  testimony  can  be  received  for  the  fact  of  their 
own  inspiration.  Thus,  first  of  all,  inspiration  must  take  its  place 
with  other  facts  and  truths  of  Scripture,  and  be  true  to  us  in  com- 
mon with  the  others  because  the  sacred  writers  are  divinely  accred- 
ited witnesses.  Hence,  inspiration,  while  fulfilling  an  important 
office  in  revelation,  should  not  be  classed  as  one  of  their  creden- 
tials. 

3.  Verification  of  Inspiration. — As  the  fact  of  inspiration  is  from 
the  Scriptures,  its  verification  must  be  in  the  facts  which  accredit 
the  sacred  writers  as  divinely  commissioned  teachers  of  truth. 
Prophecy  and  miracles  are  their  chief  credentials.  With  these, 
however,  we  may  combine  all  other  facts  which  accredit  their  mis- 
sion and  verify  their  message.  Being  thus  accredited  as  messen- 
gers of  truth  from  God,  they  are  most  credible  witnesses  for  the 
fact  of  their  own  inspiration.     There  is  no  more  reason  to  ques- 


488  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

tion  their  testimony  respecting  this  fact  than  respecting  others. 
If  we  reject  this  we  may  reject  the  others;  for  all  have  a  common 
ground  of  verity.  Hence  to  discard  inspiration  is  really  to  discard 
revelation. 

4.  A  Rationally  Or  edible  Fact. — On  the  ground  of  theism  in- 
spiration is  rationally  possible.  If  we  deny  this  we  must  deny  all 
facts  of  a  divine  providence.  There  could  be  no  creation;  no  con- 
trol of  the  laws  of  nature  ;  no  power  of  influence  within  the  human 
soul  to  enlighten,  purify,  or  help  it.  If  God  could  do  any  of  these 
things,  then  could  he  inspire  chosen  minds  for  the  purpose  of  a  rev- 
elation, and  through  their  agency  communicate  religious  truth. 
Theism  must  carry  with  it  this  consequence. 

Inspiration,  while  a  possible  fact,  is  intrinsically  probable.  It  is 
the  most  rational  mode  of  the  divine  agency  for  the  purpose  of  a 
revelation.  We  see  not  any  other  which  might  replace  it  and  fulfill 
the  same  office.  Its  probability  is  the  same  as  the  probability  of  a 
revelation. 

5.  Value  of  Inspiration. — The  question  of  a  divine  agency  in  the 
origin  of  the  Scriptures  is  a  vital  one.  Such  an  agency  must  have 
operated  in  a  mode  to  secure  to  itself  their  proper  authorship.  In- 
spiration, as  previously  set  forth,  is  such  a  mode.  No  other  is  appar- 
ent. The  power  of  miracles  might  still  have  been  given  ;  but  this 
would  not  answer  for  the  purpose  of  a  revelation  through  human 
agency.  Miracles  fulfill  their  office  simply  as  the  credentials  of  the 
BEST  MODE  OF  mcsseugers  of  truth.  Only  inspiration  can  reveal  the 
REVELATION.  dlviuc  mind  through  the  agency  of  the  human.  With- 
out it  the  sacred  writers  would  have  been  left  mostly  to  their  own 
resources.  All  other  supernatural  aids  would  have  proved  them- 
selves insufficient.  The  apostles  were  most  highly  favored  with  the 
oral  instruction  of  the  divine  Master.  But  while  with  him  they 
were  dull  of  apprehension  as  to  the  deeper  truths  of  his  lessons  ;  and 
with  the  lapse  of  time  they  must  have  been  incapable  of  their  proper 
reproduction  and  publication.  Even  they  needed  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  its  own  modes  of  operation.  It  was  necessary 
that  the  Spirit  should  open  their  minds  for  the  reception  of  truth, 
and  lead  them  into  the  truth,  and  bring  again,  and  more  fully,  to 
their  understanding  the  lessons  of  the  Master,  that  they  might 
give  the  truth  to  men.  It  was  necessary  that  other  truths  should 
thus  be  communicated  to  chosen  minds,  through  whose  agency 
they  might  take  their  place  in  the  divine  revelation.  Through 
inspiration  the  accredited  messengers  of  divine  truth  could  fulfill 
their  office  and  give  the  truth  to  the  world.  Inspiration  is  thus  the 
divine  warrant  of  truth  in  the  Scriptures.     Their   divine  author- 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  489 

ship  is  in  their  inspiration;  their  supreme  authority  and  transcend- 
ent value  in  their  divine  authorship. 

Lee:  The  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  Bannermau:  Inspiration,  etc. ; 
Garbett  :  God's  Word  Written  ;  Jainieson  :  The  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ures ;  Warrington  :  The  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  ;  Wordsworth  :  On  the  In- 
spiration of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  Noble :  Plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  ; 
Patton  :  The  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  ;  Gaussen  :  Theopneustia  ;  Curtis  : 
The  Human  Element  in  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

2 

33 


49U  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


II. 

THE  ANGELS. 

i,  200. 

The  original  words  usually  rendered  angel  mean  primarily  a 
messenger,  and,  more  broadly,  anything  which  God  employs  in  the 
service  of  his  providence.  In  a  more  specific  sense  they  mean  per- 
sonal beings  of  a  distinct  and  definite  order.  Of  such  beings  we 
here  treat. 

I.  Concerning  the  Angels. 

1.  Realities  of  Existence. — The  existence  of  such  an  order  of 
beings  is  rationally  probable.  By  no  necessity  is  man  the  culmina- 
tion of  God's  creative  work.  Even  naturalistic  evolution  has  no 
right  to  prescribe  for  itself  any  such  limitation.  If  man  is  the 
product  of  purely  natural  forces,  as  operative  in  this  world,  then  in 
some  vastly  older  and  larger  world  such  forces  may  have  evolved  a 
much  higher  order  of  beings.  Atheistic  evolution  can  oppose  noth- 
ing to  this  inference.  We,  however,  view  the  question  from  the 
ground  of  theism.  As  we  ascend  the  scale  of  creative  existences 
from  its  lowest  form  up  to  man,  and  then  look  away  into  the  vast- 
ness  of  the  heavens  which  God  has  set  in  order,  the  creation  of 
beings  higher  than  man  seems  most  reasonable. 

The  words  of  Scripture  respecting  the  angels  cannot  be  reduced 
to  a  merely  figurative  sense,  nor  to  the   meaning  of 

NO  MERELY  */  O  ^  <-* 

FIGURATIVE       mcrc  things  in  the  providential  use  of  God,  nor  yet  to 
SENSE.  mere  forms  of  his  personal  energizing.     In  the  clear 

light  of  the  Scriptures  the  angels  are  realities  of  personal  existence. 
That  such  was  the  faith  of  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  is 
above  question.  The  Pharisees  represented  the  common  faith, 
which  the  Sadducees  denied  ;  and  on  this  issue  both  Christ  and  his 
apostles  were  surely  with  the  Pharisees,  and  against  the  Sadducees. 
Thus  in  a  disputation  with  the  latter,  on  a  question  which  involved 
the  future  existence  of  man,  Christ  openly  recognized  the  existence 
of  the  angels.'  On  this  same  question,  and  with  the  full  statement 
of  the  issue,  Paul  in  like  manner  openly  declared  himself  with  the 
Pharisees  against  the  Sadducees."  Hence  on  the  authority  of  both 
Christ  and  Paul  the  angels  are  realities  of  existence.  The  rationalise 
'  Matt,  xxii,  30.  '^  Acts  xxiii,  6-8. 


THE  ANGELS.  49I 

tic  assumption,  that  both  spoke  simply  in  accord  with  the  popular 
faith  without  any  implication  of  its  truth,  is  utterly  "  krroneocs 
groundless.  It  was  not  the  wont  of  Christ  so  to  speak,  assumption. 
and  could  not  have  been  his  manner  in  this  instance.  The  issue  on 
which  he  spoke  forbids  the  idea  of  such  a  manner.  He  answers  the 
objection  of  the  Sadducees  to  the  resurrection  and  a  future  life  by 
setting  forth  the  new  conditions  of  that  life.  The  objection  is  void 
because  in  the  transition  we  shall  become  "as  the  angels  of  God  in 
heaven."  Christ  could  not  have  made  such  use  of  what  he  knew  to 
be  a  popular  error.  If  on  this  question  Paul  knew  that  truth  was 
Avith  the  Sadducees,  his  joining  the  Pharisees  against  them  was  un- 
manly, dishonest,  indeed. 

2.  Of  a  Spiritual  Nature. — On  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
there  can  be  no  question  of  a  spiritual  nature  of  angels.  Their 
endowments  and  activities  allow  no  other  view.  That  they  have 
such  a  nature  has  been  the  common  faith  of  the  Church,  though 
there  has  not  been  the  same  unanimity  on  the  question  whether  they 
are  wholly  without  corporeity.  Their  luminous  appear-  no  disproof 
ance  in  some  instances,  together  with  the  difficulty  of  manifksta- 
conceiving  the  activity  of  an  unbodied  spirit,  has  led  tions. 
some  to  the  opinion  that  they  have  a  material  body,  very  ethereal 
in  its  mode,  yet  furnishing  the  condition  of  their  agency.  It  ac- 
cords with  the  Scriptures  that  angels  were  not  always  visible  when 
present,  and  hence  that  they  possessed  no  corporeity  with  self- 
manifesting  quality.  Visibility,  therefore,  was  in  all  instances  vol- 
untary. We  cannot  deny  the  possibility  of  such  a  manifestation 
without  a  material  corporeity.  Their  offices  in  the  economies  of 
religion  occasionally  required  their  manifestation,  and  it  is  easy  to 
think  them  endowed  with  such  power,  however  mysterious  for  our 
conception.  The  activity  of  an  embodied  spirit  has  no  peculiar 
difficulty  for  our  thought.  The  activity  of  our  own  spirit  is  a 
familiar  fact  of  consciousness  ;  but  if  we  seek  for  its  mode  we  shall 
find  it  quite  as  hidden  as  the  agency  of  an  unbodied  spirit.  The 
common  faith  of  the  Church,  that  angels  are  without  material  cor- 
poreity, seems  more  in  accord  with  the  Scriptures. 

3.  With  Personal  Endowments. — The  collocation  of  a  few  appro- 
priate texts  will  set  the  personality  of  angels  in  a  clear  light.  All 
that  we  require  is  such  facts  in  them  as  belong  to  personality  in  our- 
selves, or  such  forms  of  activity  as  are  possible  only  with  the  con- 
stituent powers  of  personality.  The  angels  bless  the  the  proof  in 
Lord  and  fulfill  his  commandments,  hearkening  unto  their  offices. 
the  voice  of  his  word.'     In  such  exercises  there  is  an  intelligent 

1  Psa.  ciii,  20. 


492  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

recognition  of  G-od  and  his  claims,  of  his  majesty  and  love.  There 
is  also  a  response  of  the  religious  affections  in  reverence  and  praise, 
and  a  voluntary  self -consecration  to  the  service  and  worship  of  God. 
With  such  forms  of  activity  there  must  be  intellect,  sensibility,  and 
will — that  complex  of  powers  which  constitutes  personality.  The 
angel  which  announced  to  the  shepherds  the  advent  of  our  Lord, 
and  the  multitude  of  the  heavenly  host  which  quickly  Joined  him 
in  the  joy  of  the  great  event,  were  all  personal  beings.^  The  angels 
which,  with  intent  mind  and  intense  desire,  study  the  mystery 
of  redemption,  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should 
follow,  must  have  a  personal  existence.''  The  joy  of  the  angels 
over  the  repentance  of  a  sinner  is  a  personal  joy. '  There  must  be 
an  intelligent  recognition  of  the  interests  which  center  in  such  an 
event,  and  also  an  affectional  nature  deeply  responsive  to  its  blessed- 
ness. The  angel  which  ministered  to  Christ  after  the  temptation 
in  the  wilderness,  and  the  angel  which  strengthened  him  in  the 
agonies  of  Gethsemane  were  personal  beings.  Any  other  view  robs 
the  facts  of  their  deepest  truth.  Personal  agency  cannot  be  simu- 
lated ;  and  beings  who  uniformly  act  in  a  personal  manner  must  be 
persons. 

4.  Grade  of  their  Poiuers. — Our  owd  powers  are  the  only  stand- 
ard with  which  we  can  compare  the  powers  of  angels.  They  are 
like  us  in  personality,  and  finite  like  ourselves.  They  are  neither 
omniscient  nor  omnipotent,  and  yet  have  much  knowledge  and 
power.  They  have  a  wonderful  facility  of  movement,  and  large 
executive  efficiencies.  The  truth  of  these  statements  lies  in  the 
facts  of  Scripture  respecting  the  angels.  "The  wisdom  of  an 
angel  "  is  used  in  an  adjective  sense  for  the  expression  of  the  highest 
measure  of  finite  knowledge.*  Angels  are  greater  in  power  and 
might  than  men."  They  excel  in  strength,  or  are  mighty  in 
strength.®  They  are  named  as  the  mighty  angels  of  the  Lord,  or 
the  angels  of  his  power.'  The  high  grade  of  their  powers  is  also 
expressed  in  their  designation  as  thrones  and  dominions,  prin- 
cipalities and  powers.'  Their  facility  of  movement  and  executive 
power  will  fully  appear  in  the  treatment  of  the  offices  which  they 
fulfill. 

5.  All  Originally  Holy. — The  position,  that  all  angels  were  orig- 
inally holy,  requires  little  more  than  its  simple  statement  as  a  fact. 
Only  some  form  of  Manicheism  could  oppose  to  it  any  contradic- 
tion.    The  holiness  of  the  divine  Creator  determines  the  primitive 

'  Luke  ii,  9-14.  '  1  Pet.  i,  12,  '  Luke  xv,  10. 

4  3  Sam.  xiv,  17,  20.  «  2  Pet.  ii,  11.  «  Psa.  ciii,  20. 

•>  2  Thess.  i,  7.  »  Col.  i,  16. 


THE  ANGELS.  403 

holiness  of  all  personal  orders.  The  angels  must  be  included  in 
the  characterization  of  newly  created  existences  as  ''very  good."  ' 
They  must  have  been  good  in  their  kind,  and  therefore,  as  persons 
morally  constituted,  must  have  been  holy  in  their  nature.  Con- 
sistently with  this  fact,  and  in  further  proof  of  it,  evil  angels  are 
such  only  by  apostasy. 

II.  The  Good  Angels. 

1.  A  Great  Multitude. — Of  course  there  are  no  data  for  an  exact 
or  even  approximate  enumeration  of  the  holy  angels.  The  state- 
ments of  Scripture,  however,  assure  us  that  they  are  a  great  multi- 
tude. We  read  of  "  thousands  upon  thousands,"'  and  of  "  thousand 
thousands,"  and  "  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand,"  '  and  of  "  the 
voice  of  many  angels  round  about  the  throne,"  in  number  *'  ten 
thousand  times  ten  thousand,  and  thousands  of  thousands."  *  These 
are  definite  numbers  with  an  indefinite  sense,  but  clearly  with  the 
sense  of  a  great  multitude. 

2.  Uve?'  Loyal  to  God  and  Duty. — By  the  goodness  of  angels  we 
mean  more  than  their  primitive  holiness.  That  was  simply  a 
quality  of  their  nature,  with  spontaneous  tendencies  toward  holy 
activities.  Goodness  is  the  creation  of  such  activities.  On  the 
ground  of  a  holy  nature  there  is  constructed  a  holy  character.  The 
moral  activities,  with  the  intensities  of  thought  and  affection,  are 
ever  in  loyalty  to  God  and  duty.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  their 
characterization,  often  repeated,  as  ''the  holy  angels."  In  all  the 
allotments  of  duty,  as  recorded  in  the  Scripture,  and  whatever  the 
service,  there  is  ever  a  prompt  and  hearty  fulfillment.  They  ever 
keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  and  do  his  pleasure."  The 
same  truth  appears  in  the  petition  of  our  Lord's  Prayer,  "  Thy 
will  be  done  in  earth,  as  in  heaven."  °  They  worship  God  with 
all  the  intensities  of  adoring  love.' 

3.  hi  Social  and  Organic  Compact. — The  angels  are  in  no  sense 
a  race,  but  a  company,  or  companies,  each  individual  being  an 
original  creation.  Hence  the  grounds  of  social  affinity  arising  out 
of  our  own  race  relations  are  entirely  wanting  in  them.  It  does 
not  follow  that  they  are  without  social  affinity,  for  there  are  other 
sufficient  grounds  of  such  affinity.  Our  own  sensibilities  go  beyond 
our  race  relations  and  embrace  all  that  is  orderly  and  beautiful. 
That  there  is  no  social  result  is  simply  from  the  lack  of  rational 
and  sympathetic  response  in  such  forms  of  order  and  beauty. 
There  is  no  such  hinderance  in  the  relation  of  angels.     There  is 

'  Gen.  i,  31.  '  Psa.  Ixviii,  17.  '  Dan.  vii,  10.         ■•  Rev.  v,  11. 

*  Psa.  ciii,  20,  21.        «  Matt,  vi,  10.  '  Rev.  iv,  8-11. 


494  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

between  them  a  mutual  apprehension  of  all  that  is  pure  and  good 
and  lofty,  and  a  reciprocal  response  of  loving  sympathy.  In  this 
there  is  ample  ground  for  social  compact.  Beyond  this,  God  is  for 
them  a  center  of  loving  union.  As  all  are  bound  to  him  in  a  su- 
preme love,  so  are  they  bound  to  each  other  in  loving  fellowship. 
This  accords  with  the  view  of  the  angels  in  which  the  Scriptures 
place  them. 

Beyond  this  social  life,  the  angels  are  in  economical  compact. 
DISTINCTION  There  are  terms  which  plainly  signify  a  distinction  of 
or  ORDERS.  orders.  Such  are  the  terms  thrones,  dominions,  prin- 
cipalities, powers."  There  may  be  higher  and  lower  grades  in  the 
scale  of  being.  There  is  no  law  which  should  determine  an  abso- 
lute equality.  All  the  analogies  of  creation  suggest  gradations 
among  the  angels.  However  this  may  be,  these  terms  of  distinc- 
tion do  imply  organic  compact.  The  angels  are  the  Lord's  hosts.* 
This  form  of  expression  occurs  with  frequent  repetition,  and  con- 
tains the  idea  of  a  military  organization.  Then  we  have  the  names 
of  Gabriel  and  Michael,  who  appear  among  the  angels  in  matchless 
greatness,  and  with  the  investment  of  rectoral  functions.  Gabriel 
appears  in  his  greatness  to  Daniel,  with  the  interpretation  of  his 
vision  f  and  also  brings  the  salutation  to  Mary."  Michael  as  a 
great  prince  stands  up  for  the  people  of  God  ;  ^  rebukes  the  devil 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord ;  *  and  with  his  angels  fights  against  the 
dragon. '  Thus  he  appears  with  princely  powers,  and  in  command 
of  a  host  of  angels.  The  group  of  facts  which  we  have  presented 
suffices  for  the  proposition  that  the  angels  exist  in  forms  of  organic 
compact. 

4.  Ministry/  of  the  Good  Angels. — The  idea  of  service  or  minis- 
try is  given  in  the  appellative  sense  of  angel.  The  representation 
of  the  good  angels  throughout  the  Scriptures  is  replete  with  this 
idea.  Only  an  elaborate  treatment  could  compass  the  question  of 
their  ministry  ;  and  such  a  discussion  would  encounter  many  per- 
plexities. The  leading  facts,  and  about  all  that  can  be  instructive 
and  useful,  may  be  very  briefly  given. 

In  the  history  of  opinion  on  this  question  extreme  views  often 
EXTREME  appear.     The  government  of  the  world  is  mostly  placed 

VIEWS.  JQ  ^j^g  hands  of  angels.     Nearly  all  events  which  spe- 

cially concern  us  are  the  work  of  their  agency.  Every  man  has 
his  own  guardian  angel.  Each  nation  has  a  presiding  angel,  and 
each  planet  and  star.  These  views  exaggerate  the  powers  and 
offices  of  the  angels.     Natural  events  are  thus  accounted  supernat- 

'  Col.  i,  16.  ^  Psa.  cxlviii,  2.  ^  Dan.  viii.  4  L^^e  i,  26-38. 

^  Dan.  xii,  1.  ^  Jude  9.  '  Eev.  xii,  7. 


THE  ANGELS.  495 

nral  and  assigned  to  an  inadequate  agency.  The  Scriptures  do  not 
warrant  the  opinion  of  such  a  ministry  of  angels ;  the  alleged 
proofs  are  inconclusive. 

It  is  true,  as  previously  shown,  that  Michael  appeared  as  a  prince 
in  behalf  of  the  Hebrews  ;  but  this  was  in  the  time  of 

.  .      .  RESPKCTING 

their  captivity,  and  in  a  crisis  of  profound  interest,  and  michael  ano 
may  have  been  only  for  this  exigency.  Hence  the  opin-  <^'^"**"'-'" 
ion  of  a  permanent  presidency  is  without  warrant.  Advocates  of 
these  extreme  views  go  much  further.  They  find  in  the  same  book 
mention  of  the  princes  of  Persia  and  Grecia,'  and  infer  that  they 
were  the  presiding  angels  of  these  nations,  just  as  Michael  was  the 
presiding  angel  of  the  Hebrews.  If  such  princes  were  angels  in 
fact  the  inference  of  a  permanent  presidency  Avould  not  follow, 
just  as  it  does  not  in  the  instance  of  Michael.  Much  less  would 
the  inference  of  a  common  presidency  of  angels  over  nations  fol- 
low. Further,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  princes  of  Persia  and 
Grecia  were  angels.  Respecting  the  former,  Clarke  says  :  "  I  think 
it  would  go  far  to  make  a  legend  or  a  precarious  tale  of  this  impor- 
tant place  to  endeavor  to  maintain  that  either  a  good  or  evil  angel 
is  intended  here.'"'  As  against  the  above  views  it  should  further 
be  noted  that  both  Gabriel  and  Michael  fulfilled  offices  among  the 
Hebrews,  and  also  in  Persia.  These  facts  are  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  one  guardian  angel  for  each  nation,  and  particularly 
with  the  idea  that  the  prince  of  Persia  was  an  angel ;  for  in  such  a 
case  we  must  find  the  angel  of  the  Hebrews  in  diplomatic  inter- 
course with  the  angel  of  Persia.  This  implication  is  not  in  itself 
credible.  It  is  specially  discredited  by  the  fact  that  the  prince  of 
Persia  maintained  a  sharp  contention  against  Gabriel  and  Michael.' 
Surely  he  could  not  have  been  a  good  angel.  Hence  all  proof  that 
each  nation  has  its  guardian  angel  entirely  fails. 

The  alleged  proof  that  each  person,  or  even  that,  each  believer, 
lias  his  own  guardian  angel,  is  far  short  of  conclusive.  xoinditidu\i 
One  of  such  proofs  is  the  text  respecting  the  little  ones  gcardian- 
whose  angels  behold  the  face  of  the  Father  in  heaven.'' 
The  sense  given  by  Dr.  Hodge  is  all  that  the  passage  will  warrant : 
"  It  does  teach  that  children  have  guardian  angels ;  that  is,  that 
angels  watch  over  their  welfare.  But  it  does  not  prove  that  each 
child,  or  each  believer,  has  his  own  guardian  angel."'  Another 
text  alleged  in  proof  is  entirely  without  force.  It  is  the  text  re- 
specting the  angel  which  liberated  Peter  from  the  prison.     When 

'  Dan.  X,  20.  ^  Commentary,  Dan.  x,  13. 

3  Dan.  X,  13,  20,  21.  *  Matt,  xviii,  10. 

*  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  i,  p.  640. 


*96  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  friends  in  prayer  at  the  house  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  John, 
could  not  dissuade  the  damsel  from  her  conviction  that  Peter  was 
at  the  gate,  they  said,  "  It  is  his  angel/' '  These  words  do  not 
necessarily  mean  that  Peter  had  constantly  a  guardian  angel ;  much 
less  that  every  believer  has.  Further,  even  if  such  were  the  sense 
of  the  words,  it  must  be  noted  that  they  are  not  the  words  of  in- 
spired persons,  and  hence  are  wholly  without  doctrinal  value. 

There  still  remains  much  respecting  the  ministry  of  the  good 
MANY  MINIS-  angels.  A  glance  at  their  appearances  and  agency  in 
TRIES.  sacred  history  may  help  our  view  of  their  offices  in  the 

work  of  providence  and  in  the  economies  of  religion.  The  angels 
are  the  morning  stars  and  sons  of  God  who  rejoice  over  the  work  of 
creation.''  They  often  appear  in  the  scenes  of  patriarchal  history 
as  the  messengers  of  God  and  in  the  execution  of  important  offices 
in  behalf  of  his  servants.  They  participated  in  the  publication 
of  the  law  from  Sinai.  ^  They  ever  wait  on  the  commandments  of 
God  in  the  spirit  of  obedience."  '^  They  predicted  and  celebrated 
the  birth  of  Christ  (Matt,  i,  20;  Luke  i,  11);  they  ministered  to 
him  in  his  temptation  and  sufferings  (Matt,  iv,  11;  Luke  xxii,  43); 
and  they  announced  his  resurrection  and  ascension  (Matt,  xxviii,  2; 
John  XX,  13;  Acts  i,  10,  11).  They  are  still  ministering  spirits 
to  believers  (Heb.  i,  14);  they  delivered  Peter  from  prison;  they 
watch  over  children  (Matt,  xviii,  10);  they  bear  the  souls  of  the 
departed  to  Abraham's  bosom  (Luke  xvi,  22);  they  are  to  attend 
Christ  at  his  second  coming,  and  gather  his  people  into  his  king- 
dom (Matt,  xiii,  39;  xvi,  27;  xxiv,  31).  Such  are  the  general 
statements  of  the  Sci-iptures  on  this  subject,  and  with  these  we 
should  be  content.  We  know  that  they  are  the  messengers  of  God  ; 
that  they  are  now  and  ever  have  been  employed  in  executing  his 
commissions,  but  further  than  this  nothing  is  positively  revealed. "' 

IIL — The  Evil  Angels. 
1.  Evil  by  Apostasy. — As  previously  pointed  out,  all  personal 
and  morally  constituted  existences  are  originally  created  in  holiness; 
that  is,  with  a  moral  nature  in  harmony  with  their  moral  relations, 
and  spontaneously  responsive  to  the  requirements  of  moral  duty. 
This  accords  with  all  the  relative  facts  of  Scripture,  and  is 
QUESTION  OP  guaranteed  by  the  holiness  and  goodness  of  the  Creator. 
THE  SINNING.  How  could  such  persons  sin  ?  This  question  is  sure  to 
arise.     It  is  not  clear  of  perplexity,  yet  not  wholly  in  the  dark. 

'  Acts  xii,  15.  «  Job  xxxviii,  7. 

3  Gal.  iii,  19 ;  Heb.  il,  3.  ^  Psa.  ciii,  20,  21. 

^  Hodge :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  i,  pp.  639,  640. 


THE  ANGELS.  497 

The  same  question  arose  in  connection  with  the  fall  of  man.  It 
is  specially  in  that  view  that  it  is  not  wholly  in  the  dark.  The 
original  constitution  of  man,  even  with  subjective  holiness,  left  him 
open  to  temptation  through  his  sensibilities,  and  therefore  with  the 
possibility  of  sinning.  For  any  light  on  the  question  respecting 
the  apostasy  of  angels  we  require  the  supposition  of  a  constitu- 
tional susceptibility  to  temptation  in  them.  The  supposition  is 
not  unreasonable,  although  the  mode  of  such  susceptibility  in 
them  is  hidden  from  us,  while  it  is  quite  open  in  the  case  of 
man. 

The  existence  of  evil  angels  carries  with  it  the  fact  of  apostasy. 
That  there  are  evil  angels  is  one  of  the  clear  truths  of  Ey,L  only  by 
Scripture.  With  equal  clearness  the  Scriptures  account  apostasy. 
their  evil  character  to  an  original  apostasy.  They  are  described 
as  the  angels  that  sinned,  and  also  as  the  angels  who  kept  not  their 
first  estate  or  principality,  but  left  their  own  habitation.'  These 
facts  constitute  an  apostasy  of  angels.  "When  this  apostasy  occurred 
we  know  not.  Nor  is  the  number  made  known.  It  was  the  quaint 
opinion  of  Auselm  that  the  number  of  the  fallen  angels  was  exactly 
replaced  by  the  number  of  the  elect  out  of  the  human  race  ;  but 
there  is  no  light  upon  the  question  in  this  fanciful  view. 

2.  TJie  Evil  One. — The  existence  of  a  chief  apostate  angel  is 
equally  a  truth  of  the  Scrij)tures.  Various  names  are  assigned  him: 
Devil — calumniator,  slanderer,  accuser  ;  Satan — the  Adversary  ; 
Prince  of  darkness,  Beelzebub,  Deceiver,  Serpent,  Dragon,  with 
still  other  terms  expressive  of  his  evil  nature  and  work.  This  chief 
apostate  is  also  frequently  called  6  Trovrjpog — the  Evil  One."  There 
is  no  other  name  which  better  expresses  his  inner  nature,  none  in 
which  all  his  evil  traits  more  completely  center. 

On  the  ground  of  Scripture  the  existence  of  the  devil,  with  other 
apostate  spirits,  must  be  admitted.  The  words  of  truth  of  his 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  which  this  truth  lies,  cannot  existence. 
be  explained  away  on  the  principle  of  accommodation  to  the  com- 
mon Jewish  faith  on  this  question.  *'  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  Jesus 
and  his  apostles  merely  left  men  in  their  belief,  not  thinking  it 
worth  while  to  undeceive  them,  and  trusting  that  in  time  they 
would  of  themselves  discover  their  mistake.  On  the  contrary,  our 
Lord  and  his  followers  very  decidedly  and  strongly  confirm  the 
doctrine  by  numerous  express  declarations.  For  instance,  our 
Lord,  in  his  explanation  of  '  the  parable  of  the  tares  and  the  wheat,* 
says  expressly  that   the  enemy  who   sows  the  tares    is    the  devil. 

'  2  Pet.  ii,  4  ;  Jude  6. 

"Matt,  xiii,  19  ;  Eph.  vi,  16  ;  1  Johu  ii,  13  ;  iii,  12  ;  v,  18. 


498  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

And  again,  in  explaining  that  portion  of  the  parable  of  the  sower, 
in  which  it  is  said  that  the  birds  devoured  the  seed  that  fell  on  the 
trodden  way-side,  he  says,  '  Then  cometh  the  devil,  and  taketh 
away  the  word  out  of  their  hearts,'  etc.  And  there  are  very  many 
other  passages  in  which  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  do  not  merely 
leave  uncontradicted,  or  merely  assent  to,  what  is  said  by  others  as 
to  this  point,  or  merely  allude  to  it  incidentally,  but  go  out  of  their 
way,  as  it  were,  to  assert  the  doctrine  most  distinctly,  and  earnestly 
dwell  on  it.'  If,  therefore,  the  belief  in  evil  spirits  is  altogether  a 
vulgar  error,  it  certainly  is  not  an  error  which  Jesus  and  his  apos- 
tles merely  neglected  to  correct,  or  which  they  merely  connived  at, 
but  which  they  decidedly  inculcated.''" 

When  Satan  fell  from  his  high  and  holy  estate,  or  by  what  pecul- 
coNCERNiNG  ^^^  form  of  psychological  movement,  we  know  not.  It 
HIS  APOSTASY,  geems  plain  that  it  preceded  the  creation  and  trial  of 
man,  but  beyond  this  all  is  to  us  unknown.  We  have  little  insight 
into  the  sensibilities  of  spiritual  beings  without  a  physical  organism 
like  our  own.  Sensibilities  are  clearly  possible  to  such  beings,  and 
must  be  actual  in  their  personal  constitution — must  be,  because 
without  them  personality  itself  is  impossible.  It  has  been  a  com- 
mon opinion  that  the  mental  movement  of  Satan  through  which  he 
fell  was  in  the  form  of  ambition  or  pride.  This  would  include  an 
activity  of  the  sensibilities,  for  there  can  be  neither  without  them. 
The  ground  for  this  common  opinion  is  in  the  words  of  Paul  re- 
specting what  a  bishop  should  be  and  should  not  be  :  *'  Not  a  nov- 
ice, lest  being  lifted  up  with  pride  he  fall  into  the  condemnation 
of  the  devil." '  These  words  are  interpreted  to  mean  such  a  con- 
demnation for  ambition  or  pride  as  the  devil  himself  incurred. 
This  sense  does  not  seem  foreign  to  the  words ;  yet  a  single 
text  of  the  kind  is  hardly  sufficient  for  any  doctrinal  determina- 
tion. 

3.  Demoniacal  Possession. — Demoniacs  repeatedly  appear  in  the 
narratives  of  the  New  Testament,  and  with  various  forms  of  mental 
and  bodily  disease,  which  are  attributed  to  the  agency  of  evil  spirits, 
DEMONIACAL  mostly  uamcd  daiiiovia.  In  the  case  of  demoniacs,  evil 
AGENCY.  spirits  take  possession  of  the  subject,  and  act  upon  it 

from  within,  not  from  without.  The  action  is  upon  either  body  or 
mind,  and  often  upon  both  at  the  same  time.     In  some  instances 

'  Respecting  ' '  the  very  many  other  passages, "  the  author  cites  a  number, 
"which  we  give  by  reference  :  John  viii,  44  ;  1  Tim.  iii,  6  ;  3  Tim.  ii,  26  ;  Heb. 
ii,  14 ;  1  Pet.  v,  8  ;  1  John  iii,  8  ;  Eev.  xx,  2. 

'  Whately  :    Good  and  Evil  Angela^  ijp.  65,  66. 

31  Tim.  iii,  6. 


THE  ANGELS.  490 

the  very  center  of  the  personality  seems  to  be  seized  and  held,  so 
that  all  the  action  of  the  subject  is  attributable  to  the  possessing 
demon  or  demons. 

The  results  appear  in  various  forms  of  mental  and  bodily  dis- 
ease, according  to  the  mode  of  the  demoniacal  agency.  Many  of 
the  specially  notable  miracles  of  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  were 
wrought  in  the  curing  of  such  cases.  We  give  a  few  instances  by 
reference,  which  also  will  represent  the  forms  of  disease  resulting 
from  such  possession.' 

The  reality  of  demoniacal  possession  was  the  common  Jewish 
faith  at  the  time  of  our  Lord.     The  most  rationalistic 

.  ...  TRUTH    OF     DE- 

mterpreters  ot  Scripture   will  not   question  this  fact,    moniacal  pos- 
If  any  one  thinks  such  faith  distinctively  Jewish  he  skssion. 
greatly  mistakes  the  facts  in  the   case.     That  faith  pervades  the 
theology    of  the   Gentiles,    particularly  of    the     Greeks    and  Ro- 
mans. 

In  the  drift  of  rationalistic  theology  objections  arose  against  the 
doctrine  of  demoniacal  possession.  Strenuous  attempts  ratioxalistic 
were  made  to  displace  it  and  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  '^i^'^- 
consistently  with  its  denial.  The  method  of  this  endeavor  was  de- 
termined by  unquestionable  facts  in  the  case.  One  of  these  facts 
is  that  the  Jews  of  the  time  firmly  believed  the  doctrine  ;  another, 
that  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  treated  the  instances  of  alleged 
possession  precisely  as  if  such  j^ossession  were  a  reality.  This  fact 
is  so  open  and  above  question  that  no  advance  could  be  made  on 
the  ground  of  its  denial.  This  endeavor  therefore  necessarily  pro- 
ceeded upon  a  principle  previously  noticed — that  of  accommodation 
to  the  common  faith  of  the  people.  This  faith  was  a  delusion,  and 
our  Lord  and  his  disciples  knew  that  it  was  a  delusion,  but  did  not 
think  it  important  to  correct  it.  Time  would  make  the  correc- 
tion ;  therefore  they  treated  these  cases  just  as  though  they  were 
instances  of  real  possession. 

Such  an  interpretation  is  irreconcilable  with  the  facts  concerned, 
and  must  be  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  integrity  and  trust-  j-^lse  to  the 
worthiness  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  and  evangel-  facts. 
ists  as  religious  teachers.  The  truth  of  this  proposition  must 
appear  in  the  light  of  the  facts.  In  one  instance  the  subjects  of 
Christ's  healing  represent  various  forms  of  disease — divers  disease^ 
and  torments,  cases  of  lunacy  and  palsy,  and  with  the  rest  demoni- 
acs.'    If  there  was  no  reality  in  the  demoniacal  cases  why  should 

'  Matt,  viii,  28-33 ;  ix,  32,  33  ;  xii,  22  ;  xvii,  14-18;  Mark  i,  23-26  ;  Luke  xiii, 
11-16  ;  Acts  xvi,  1&-18. 
'  Matt,  iv,  24. 


500  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

such  distinction  be  made  and  perpetuated  in  the  Gospel  ?  How 
could  this  be  honestly  done  ?  Our  Lord  himself  makes  a  like  dis- 
tinction in  his  charge  to  his  apostles  :  "  Heal  the  sick,  cleanse  the 
lepers,  raise  the  dead,  cast  out  demons. ' ' '  And  this  goes  into  the 
sacred  record.  The  seventy  evangelists  return  from  their  mission, 
' '  saying.  Lord,  even  the  demons  are  subject  unto  us  through  thy 
name."''  The  answer  of  Christ  responds  to  the  truth  of  their 
words.  If  the  demons  existed  only  in  imagination  why  this  mu- 
tual recognition  of  them  as  realities  ?  The  demons  possess  per- 
sonal qualities  and  exercise  personal  agency.  They  know  Jesus  as 
the  Son  of  God  and  the  Messiah.^  There  is  interlocution  between 
Christ  and  these  evil  spirits,  and  such  as  would  be  impossible  with 
the  subject  of  their  possession.*  He  commands  their  action  just  as 
though  they  were  personal  agents.^ 

Their  number  emphasizes  their  meaning  respecting  the  present 
NUMBER  AND  questiou.  A  few  instances  might  not  be  decisive  ;  but 
CHARACTER.  thclr  grcat  number,  with  their  character  as  above 
given,  is  conclusive  of  demoniacal  possession.  Our  Lord  and  his 
disciples  could  not  in  all  these  instances  proceed  in  accommodation 
to  the  popular  faith,  while  knowing  that  faith  to  be  groundless.  In 
many  instances  there  was  no  reason  for  such  accommodation  ;  not 
any  excuse  for  it.  Nor  could  that  principle  justify  the  narration 
of  such  instances  in  the  gospels  in  the  same  manner  as  if  cases  of 
real  demoniacal  possession. 

Two  instances  are  regarded  as  specially  decisive  of  this  issue  :  the 
TWO  SPECIAL  temptation  of  our  Lord  in  the  wilderness  *  and  the 
INSTANCES.  case  of  the  Gadarene.''  In  the  former  the  devil  is  the 
immediate  agent  in  the  temptation,  but  not  in  the  mode  of  posses- 
sion ;  for  he  had  no  such  power  over  the  Christ.  But  while  differ- 
ing in  these  respects  the  case  equally  proves  the  existence  of  an 
evil  spirit,  operative  in  the  mode  of  personal  agency.  In  the  case 
of  the  Gadarene  the  agency  of  the  evil  spirits  is  operative  not  only 
in  the  madman,  but  also  in  the  herd  of  swine.  These  instances 
cannot  be  referred  to  superstition,  or  a  lawless  imagination,  or  a 
diseased  brain.  "  The  possession  of  the  herd  of  swine  by  the  de- 
mons, and  the  temptation  of  the  Son  of  God,  are  the  two  cases 
which — I  observed — preclude  all  such  explanation,  and  which  were 
doubtless  recorded,  partly,  for  that  very  purpose.  Whatever  effects 
may  be  produced    in  men  by  a  diseased  imagination,  the  brute 

'Matt.  X,  8.  'Luke  X,  17. 

3  Mark  i,  24  ;  Luke  iv,  41.  *  Matt,  viii,  29-33. 

'  Mark  i,  25,  34  ;  iii,  11,  12  ;  ix,  25.  « Matt,  iv,  1-11. 
■>  Luke  viii,  26-36. 


THE  ANGELS.  501 

animals,  in  the  one  case,  were  as  much  lelow  that  influence  as,  in 
the  other  case,  the  Son  of  God  was  aiove  it."' 

If  a  real  agency  of  evil  spirits  is  denied,  the  miracles  of  Christ  in 
the  cure  of  demoniacs  lose  their  deepest  meaning.  Indeed,  they 
are  not  only  minified,  but  brought  into  uncertainty  by  the  elimi- 
nation of  this  vital  element.  There  is  nothing  clearer  in  the  nar- 
ratives than  the  demoniacal  agency,  and  if  we  deny  that  we  may 
deny  the  whole  account.  In  every  case  their  profound  significance 
for  the  power  of  Christ  over  the  powers  of  evil  against  which  we 
must  contend  is  entirely  lost. 

There  is  perplexity  for  thought  in  the  idea  of  demoniacal  posses- 
sion.    This  is  readily  conceded  :  but  the  denial  of  such 

•^  '  PERPI.KXITIE3 

possession  involves  still  greater  perplexity  respecting  of  tuk  yuKs- 
tlie  interpretation  of  Scripture  and  the  trustworthiness  ^'°'^' 
of  Christ  and  his  disciples  as  religious  teachers.  The  existence  of 
the  devil  and  his  angels,  as  an  evil  power,  is  clearly  the  sense  of 
Scripture.  From  the  beginning  that  power  has  ever  been  active 
for  the  moral  ruin  of  man.  The  mission  of  Christ  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  race  required  the  overthrow  of  this  power.  This  was  a 
leading  purpose  of  his  incarnation  and  death. ^  These  evil  spirits 
well  knew  this  purj)ose,  and  naturally  were  stimulated  to  the 
utmost  stretch  of  energy  against  its  achievement.  It  may  be  that 
instances  of  demoniacal  possession  were  temporarily  permitted,  that 
the  power  of  Christ  over  this  power  of  evil  might  be  signalized. 

The  reality  of  such  instances  at  that  time  is  no  proof  of  present 
instances.     The  rational  inference  is  that  they  began      „^„„^„„„ 

-'    ,      y  NO  PROOF  OP 

and  ceased  with  the  special  occasion  of  their  permission,      present  in- 
There  is  no  evidence  that  those  possessed  of  evil  spirits     ^'^^^'^^s. 
were  themselves  monsters  of  wickedness  ;  nor  were  they  personally 
demonized  by   this  possession.      Yet  it  was  to  them  a  grievous 
affliction,  and  must  take  its  place  with  other  instances  which  Provi- 
dence permits,  for  sufficient  reasons  to  the  divine  mind,  however 
hidden  from  our  own.     We  have  some  explanation  in  the  purpose 
of  this  permission  as  above  stated,  just  as  the  sore  affliction  of  the 
family  which  Jesus  loved  has  some  explanation  in  its  gracious  pur- 
pose.'    As  through  this  affliction  the  Father  and  the  ^he  power  of 
Son  were  glorified,  and  the  faith  of  the  disciples  most  christ  sig- 
fully  assured,  so    through  this   permission  of    demo- 
niacal possession  the  power  of  Christ  over  the  powers  of  evil  was 
specially  signalized.      The  seventy  returned  from  their  mission, 
saying,  "  Lord,  even  the  demons  are  subject  unto  us  through  thy 

'  Whately  :  Good  and  Evil  Angels,  pp.  127,  128. 
«  Heb.  ii,  14,  15.  =  John  xi,  4,  5,  15. 

34  ' 


502  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

name.  And  he  said  unto  them,  I  beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fall 
from  heaven."'  Further,  in  replying  to  the  accusation,  that  he 
was  an  agent  of  Beelzebub,  he  said  with  emphasis,  "  But  if  I  cast 
out  demons  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come 
unto  you."^  With  the  reality  of  demoniacal  possession  these  mir- 
acles of  Christ  reveal  his  transcendent  power  and  assure  us  of  his 
triumph  over  all  the  powers  of  evil.' 

There  has  been  a  strong  reaction  from  the  rationalistic  drift  of 
RK  ACT  ION  German  thinking  which  denied  the  existence  of  evil 
FROM  THE  RA-    gpi^its.     Domcr  gives  this  testimony  :  "  Therefore  also 

TIONALISTIC  ^  111-  t  c-i    -I   ^     • 

VIEW.  the  most  noteworthy  theologians  after  Schleiermacher 

have  not  agreed  with  him  upon  this  point.  Even  Liicke  and  Eo- 
mang  are  not  opposed  to  the  supposition  of  fallen  evil  spirits, 
although  they  reject  the  possibility  of  an  absolutely  evil  person  or 
an  absolutely  evil  kingdom.  Nitzsch,  Twesten,  Eothe,  Julius 
Miiller,  Tholuck,  Lange,  Martensen,  as  well  as  Thomasius,  Hoff- 
man, Kahnis,  Philippi,  and  Luthardt,  avow  that  not  merely  is  sin 
found  in  humanity,  but  that  a  kingdom  of  evil  spirits  with  a  head 
over  them  is  also  to  be  inculcated.  Romang  rightly  satirizes  the 
fond  enlightenment  which  takes  much  credit  to  itself  for  being 
above  this  representation."  * 

4.  Work  of  the  Devil  and  Ms  Angels. — In  the  words  of  our  Lord 
we  have  the  phrase,  "  the  devil  and  his  angels."  ^  In  this  realm  of 
evil  the  devil  is  chief  and  evil  spirits  are  under  his  leadership,  and 
execute  his  commands.  In  this  sense  they  are  his  angels.  There 
may  also  be  an  implicit  reference  to  the  original  apostasy  on  the 
A  REALM  OF  suppositlou  tliat  these  subordinate  spirits  followed  the 
EVIL  SPIRITS,  devil  in  his  revolt  from  God.  The  formula  implies  an 
organic  union  of  evil  spirits.  There  are  other  forms  of  expression 
which  give  the  same  sense.  The  devil  is  the  prince  of  the  power  of 
the  air."  There  are  principalities  and  powers  of  evil,  rulers  of  the 
darkness  of  this  world,  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places,  evil 
spirits,  in  distinction  from  men,  against  which  we  must  contend.' 
The  idea  of  a  realm  of  evil  spirits,  with  the  headship  of  the  devil, 
runs  through  these  forms  of  expression. 

The  work  of  the  devil  and  his  angels  is  such  as  their  evil  nature 
IMPULSES  AND  p^ompts — wlthiu  the  limit  of  their  power,  or  of  the  di- 
LiMiTATioNs.  yinc  pcrmlssion.  They  are  not  free  from  the  divine 
restraint.     It  follows  that  what  may  be  possible  to  them  at  one 

•  Luke  X,  17, 18.  «  Matt,  xii,  38. 

^  Whately  :   Good  and  Evil  Angels,  pp.  112-116, 

"  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  iii,  p.  96. 

«  Matt.  XXV,  41.        «  Eph.  ii,  3.        '  Eph.  vi,  12 ;  Col.  i,  13 ;  ii,  15. 


THE  ANGELS.  503 

time  is  not  so  at  another.  Demoniacal  possession  may  still  be  pos- 
sible to  their  own  powers,  but  not  possible  under  the  divine  re- 
straint. There  are  other  modes  in  which  evil  spirits  may  work 
evil.  They  are  actuated  by  a  common  impulse  of  hatred  against 
God  and  man.  This  appears  in  the  whole  history  of  their  agency. 
A  central  purpose,  springing  from  their  malignance,  is  to  compass 
the  moral  ruin  of  the  race.  Their  method  is  to  lead  man  into  sin 
and  to  counterwork  the  means  of  his  salvation.  This  appears  in 
the  temptation  of  Eve  ; '  in  the  temptation  of  our  Lord  in  the  wil- 
derness ; "  in  the  seduction  of  Judas  into  his  work  of  betrayal  ; '  in 
the  power  of  darkness,  which  may  well  signify  the  rulers  of  the 
darkness,  and  their  rage  against  our  Lord  in  the  hour  providentially 
permitted  to  his  murderers  ; '  in  the  sowing  of  tares  among  the  good 
seed  ;  ^  in  catching  away  the  word  of  the  kingdom  before  it  can  be- 
come profitable." 

The  mode  of  this  evil  agency  in  its  enticements  to  sin,  and  in 
counterworking  the  gracious  means  of  our  salvation,  is  mode  of  evil 
hidden  from  our  insight.  It  has  no  coercive  power  agency. 
over  us ;  for  even  the  devil,  if  resisted,  shall  flee  from  us.'  Such 
as  are  taken  captive  at  his  will  give  the  consent  of  their  own  will, 
and  may  still  recover  themselves  out  of  his  snare."  The  agency  of 
evil  spirits  must,  for  any  practical  result,  in  some  way  act  upon 
such  forms  of  our  sensibility  as  shall,  when  thus  quickened  into 
activity,  withstand  the  good  or  become  an  enticement  to  the  evil. 
Herein  lies  the  mystery  of  the  question.  Have  they  immediate  access 
to  our  sensibilities,  or  must  they  act  through  some  means.  Just  as 
any  one  of  us  must  act  in  moving  the  sensibilities  of  another  ?  We 
have  no  unqualified  answer  to  this  question.  However,  this  evil 
agency  is  not  incredible  because  its  mode  is  a  mystery.  We  know 
the  means  by  which  one  man  moves  the  sensibilities  of  another ; 
but  when  we  go  below  the  means  to  inquire  in  what  mode  the 
effect  is  produced  we  are  quite  as  much  in  the  dark  as  in  any 
inquiry  respecting  the  mode  in  which  evil  spirits  act  upon  our 
sensibilities. 

5.  Final  Overthroiu. — The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  was  in  the 
promise  of  a  seed  which  should  bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent.' 
This  promise,  so  veiled  at  the  time,  has  unfolded  into  the  fullness 
of  the  Gospel.  The  mission  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  thus  foreshad- 
owed, was  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  devil  and  his  works.'* 

'  Gen.  iii,  1-6.  ^  jjatt.  iv,  1-11.  »  Luke  xxii,  3,  4. 

••  Luke  xxii,  53  ;  Eph.  vi,  13.  *  Matt,  xiii,  39.  «  Matt,  xiii,  19. 

'  James  iv,  7.  ^  2  Tim.  ii,  26.  »  Gen.  iii,  15. 
'«  Heb.  ii,  14  ;  1  John  iii,  8. 


504  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

For  the  accomplishment  of  this  purpose  he  is  invested  with  all  au- 
thority and  power ;  and  all  enemies  shall  be  put  under  his  feet.^ 
So  shall  he  suppress  the  devil  and  his  angels  as  a  power  of  evil. 

Wesley :  On  Good  and  Evil  Angels,  Sermons,  Ixxvi,  Ixxvii ;  Dunn  :  The 
Angels  of  God  ;  Duke  :  The  Holy  Angels;  Whateley:  Concerning  Good  and  Evil 
Angels  ;  Clayton  :  Angelology  ;  Matson  :  Satanology. 

„  '  Psa.  ex,  1 ;  1  Cor.  xv,  3. 


AKMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  505 


IIT. 

AKMINIAN"   TKEATMENT   OF   ORIGINAL    SIN. 
i,  521. 

We  have  attempted  the  right  treatment  of  this  subject  in  our 
Anthropology.  The  present  view  is  historical ;  the  aim,  to  show 
how  it  has  usually  been  treated.  The  facts  which  appear  in  this 
review  must  be  its  justification. 

I.  The  Question  in  Arminianism. 

1.  A  Common  Admnic  Sin. — By  a  common  Adamic  sin  we  mean 
a  sin  of  the  race  through  a  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam  ;  that 
the  guilt  of  his  sin  is  native  to  every  soul.  This  view  is  far  more 
common  in  Arminian  theology  than  that  of  a  sin  of  the  corrupt 
nature  with  which  we  are  born. 

After  a  definite  statement  of  the  personal  sin  of  Adam  and  Eve, 
and  of  its  penal  consequences  to  themselves,  Arminius  doctrine  of 
proceeds  :  "  The  whole  of  this  sin,  however,  is  not  arminius. 
peculiar  to  our  first  parents,  but  is  common  to  the  entire  race  and 
to  all  their  posterity,  who,  at  the  time  when  this  sin  was  com- 
mitted, were  in  their  loins,  and  who  have  since  descended  from 
them  by  the  natural  mode  of  propagation,  according  to  the  primi- 
tive benediction.  For  in  Adam  ^all  have  sinned'  (Rom.  v,  12). 
Wherefore,  whatever  punishment  was  brought  down  upon  our  first 
parents  has  likewise  pervaded  and  yet  pursues  all  their  posterity. 
So  that  all  men  '  are  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath '  (Eph.  ii,  3), 
obnoxious  to  condemnation  and  to  temporal  as  well  as  eternal 
death  ;  they  are  also  devoid  of  that  original  righteousness  and  true 
holiness  (Eom.  v,  12,  18,  19).  With  these  evils  they  would  remain 
oppressed  forever  unless  they  were  liberated  by  Christ  Jesus  ;  to 
whom  be  glory  forever."^  This  is  the  doctrine  of  native  guilt  and 
damnableness  through  a  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam.  The 
sense  of  the  passage  is  clear  in  its  own  terms,  and  clear  beyond 
question  when  read  in  the  light  of  what  immediately  precedes  re- 
specting the  sin  of  Adam  and  its  judicial  consequences  to  himself. 
In  this  view  we  are  all  sharers  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  personal 
sin,  and  this  guilt  is  the  judicial  ground,  not  only  of  the  corruption 
of  nature  or  spiritual  death  in  which  we  are  born,  but  also  of  our 
'  Writings,  vol.  i,  p.  486. 


606  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

native  amenability  to  the  penalty  of  temporal  and  eternal  death. 
There  is  in  all  this  no  recognition  of  any  demerit  of  the  common 
depravity  or  corruption  of  nature  in  which  we  are  born,  but  rather 
its  exclusion  ;  for  as  this  depravity  is  itself  held  to  be  a  penal  in- 
fliction it  could  not  with  any  consistency  be  admitted  to  contain 
the  desert  of  punishment.  The  ground  of  participation  in  the 
sin  of  our  progenitors  is  not  formally  stated,  but  is  informally  in- 
dicated in  the  account  made  of  our  being  in  their  loins  at  the  time 
of  their  sinning.  This  is  the  realistic  ground  in  distinction  from 
the  representative. 

There  are  numerous  passages  from  the  hand  of  Wesley  which 
VIEWS  OF  express  the  same  form  or  sense  of  original  sin  that  we 
WESLEY.  have  found  in  the  words  of  Arminius.     In  replying  to 

an  argument  of  Taylor  against  original  sin,  that  only  Adam  and 
Eve  could  be  justly  punishable  for  their  sin,  Wesley  says  :  "  If  no 
other  was  justly  punishable,  then  no  other  was  punished  for  that 
transgression.  But  all  were  punished  for  that  transgression, 
namely,  with  death.  Therefore,  all  were  justly  punished  for  it."  ' 
He  then  cites  with  full  approval  the  following  words  of  Dr.  Jen- 
nings :  "And,  since  it  is  so  plain  that  all  men  are  actually  pun- 
ished for  Adam's  sin,  it  must  needs  follow  that  they  '  all  sinned  in 
Adam.  By  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners.' 
They  were  so  constituted  sinners  by  Adam's  sinning  as  to  become 
liable  to  the  punishment  threatened  to  his  transgression."^  In  re- 
plying to  another  argument  of  Taylor  that  "  no  just  constitution 
can  punish  the  innocent,"  Wesley  says  :  "  This  is  undoubtedly 
true  ;  therefore  God  does  not  look  upon  infants  as  innocent,  but  as 
involved  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin ;  otherwise  death,  the  punish- 
ment denounced  against  that  sin,  could  not  be  inflicted  upon 
them." '  These  citations  clearly  express  the  view  of  Wesley  that 
we  all  share  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  and  are  justly  amenable  to  its 
punishment.  There  is  no  indication  of  the  ground  on  which  he 
based  this  common  Adamic  sin,  or  whether  the  realistic  or  the  rep- 
resentative. 

On  this  question  Fletcher  is  in  accord  with  Arminius  and  Wes- 
viEws  OF  ley-  He  holds  the  common  guilt  of  the  race  through 
FLETCHER.  g^  particlpatiou  in  the  sin  of  Adam.  This  appears  in 
his  doctrine  of  infant  justification  through  the  grace  of  the  atone- 
ment. This  grace  is  universal  and  the  justification  unconditional. 
But  the  justification  is  the  cancellation  of  sin  in  the  sense  of  de- 
merit or  guilt,  and  therefore  implies  such  form  of  native  sin.  Our 
native  sinfulness  in  the  distinctly  ethical  sense  of  demerit,  as  held 
'  Works,  vol.  V,  p.  526.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  535.  '  Ibid.,  p.  577. 


ARMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  507 

by  Fletcher,  is  more  than  an  implication  thus  reached  ;  it  is  openly 
expressed  and  traced  to  its  ground  in  the  sin  of  Adam.  In  view 
of  the  greatness  of  Christ  in  comparison  with  Adam  he  argues 
thus  :  ''  It  follows  that  as  Adam  brought  a  general  condemnation 
and  a  universal  seed  of  death  upon  all  infants,  so  Christ  brings 
upon  them  a  general  justification  and  a  universal  seed  of  life.  .  .  . 
And  if  Adam's  original  sin  was  atoned  for  and  forgiven  him,  as 
the  Calvinists,  I  think,  generally  grant,  does  it  not  follow  that,  al- 
though all  infants  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  yet  through 
the  redemption  of  Christ  they  are  in  a  state  of  favor  or  justifica- 
tion ?  For  how  could  God  damn  to  all  eternity  any  of  Adam's 
children  for  a  sin  which  Christ  expiated — a  sin  which  was  for- 
given almost  six  thousand  years  ago  to  Adam,  who  committed  it 
in  person  ?  The  force  of  this  observation  would  strike  our  Calvin- 
ist  brethren  if  they  considered  that  we  were  not  less  in  Adam's 
loins  when  God  gave  his  Son  to  Adam  in  the  grand,  original  gos- 
pel promise,  tlu^n  when  Eve  j^revailed  on  him  to  eat  of  the  forbid- 
den fruit.  .  .  .  Thus,  if  we  all  received  an  unspeakable  injury  by 
being  seminally  in  Adam  when  he  fell,  according  to  the  first  cove- 
nant, we  all  received  also  an  unsiaeakable  blessing  by  being  in  his 
loins  when  God  sj)iritually  raised  him  up  and  placed  him  upon 
gospel  ground."  '  For  the  present  we  are  concerned  with  Fletch- 
er's view  of  our  native  sinfulness,  and  not  with  his  doctrine  of  a 
universal  justification  any  further  than  it  may  serve  to  explain  the 
former.  That  vee  all  share  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  the  sin  whicli 
he  personally  committed,  is  the  clear  sense  of  the  passage  cited. 
It  is  implied  in  the  nature  of  the  infant  justification  maintained, 
and  appears  in  the  forms  of  plain  statement.  Fletcher  sets  forth 
the  same  doctrine  in  citations  from  the  articles,  homilies,  and  lit- 
urgy of  the  Church  of  England.^  The  ground  of  the  common 
guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  in  this  view  of  Fletcher,  is  the  realistic  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  representative.  There  is  no  intimation  of  a  sin 
of  our  nature  in  the  sense  of  demerit  or  guilt. 

Watson  is  still  our  own  most  honored  name  in  systematic  theol- 
ogy, and  his  view  of  the  native  sinfulness  of  the  race 
must  not  be  overlooked.  In  his  anthropology  and  in 
his  discussion  of  the  doctrinal  issues  between  Calvinism  and  Armin- 
ianism  he  had  special  occasion  for  the  treatment  of  this  question. 
The  discussion  required  the  adjustment  of  his  doctrine  of  native 
sinfulness  to  the  Arminian  system,  and  also  its  defense  against  Cal- 
vinistic  implications.  The  attempt  was  not  shunned  ;  and  what- 
ever Arminians  may  think  of  its  success,  it  is  no  special  surprise 
'  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  284.  «  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  255-2o7. 


508  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

that  from  the  Calvinistic  side  it  is  viewed  as  conceding  the  ground 
of  election  and  reprobation. 

On  the  typical  relation  of  Adam  to  Christ,  as  set  forth  by  Paul, 
ADAM  AS  TYPE  Watson  says  :  "  The  same  apostle  also  adopts  the 
OF  CHRIST.  phrases,  'the  first  Adam'  and  'the  second  Adam,' 
which  mode  of  speaking  can  only  be  explained  on  the  ground  that 
as  sin  and  death  descended  from  one,  so  righteousness  and  life  flow 
from  the  other ;  and  that  what  Christ  is  to  all  his  spiritual  seed, 
that  Adam  is  to  all  his  natural  descendants."^  This  must  mean 
the  penal  subjection  of  the  race  to  spiritual,  physical,  and  eternal 
death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  Not  only  the  terms  of  the 
passage,  but  its  connection  and  the  ruling  idea  of  the  discussion 
surely  determine  this  sense.  On  the  institution  of  the  Edenic  pro- 
bation with  Adam  and  Eve,  Watson  says  :  "  The  circumstances  of 
the  case  infallibly  show  that,  in  the  whole  transaction,  they  stood 
before  their  Maker  as  public  jjersons  and  as  the  legal  representatives 
of  their  descendants,  though  in  so  many  words  they  are  not  invested 
with  these  titles. "  ^ 

This  is  simply  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  legal  oneness  of  the 
race  with  Adam  on  the  principle  of  representation  and 
NESS  OF  THE  tlic  just  amenability  of  every  one  to  the  full  j)enalty  of 
^^^^'  his  sin.     Exceptions  are  taken  to  the  Calvinistic  doc- 

trine in  two  points  :  ''  It  asserts,  indeed,  the  imputation  of  the 
actual  commission  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  descendants,  which  is  false 
in  fact ;  makes  us  stand  chargeable  with  the  full  latitude  of  his 
transffression  and  all  its  attendant  circumstances  ;  and  constitutes 
us,  separate  from  all  actual  voluntary  offense,  equally  guilty  with 
him,  all  which  are  repugnant  equally  to  our  consciousness  and  to 
the  equity  of  the  case."  ^  The  representative  theory  in  Calvinism 
no  longer  holds  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sinful  deed  to  his  pos- 
terity, and  whatever  point  this  part  of  Watson's  criticism  might 
have  against  the  realistic  theory,  or  even  against  the  representative 
theory  as  held  when  he  wrote,  it  has  no  force  against  the  latter  as 
now  held.  In  its  present  form  it  is  not  the  sin  of  Adam  as  an  act 
of  personal  transgression,  but  the  guilt  of  his  sin  as  an  amenability 
to  its  full  penalty  that  is  imputed  to  his  offspring.  The  represent- 
ative character  of  Adam,  which  Mr.  Watson  accepts,  carries  with 
it  this  imputation  ;  and  against  this  he  has  no  reserved  ground  of 
objection.  In  any  case  of  imputation  the  guilt  of  sin  is  the  vital 
fact,  because  it  constitutes  the  amenability  to  punishment.  The 
personal  deed  of  Adam  is  quite  indifferent  to  the  imputation  of 
its  guilt  as  a  universal  amenability  to  the  full  penalty  which  he 
'  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  52.         -  Ibid.,  p.  53.  ^  Ibid. 


AHMINLVN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  509 

incurred.  If  the  economy  of  representation  in  the  Achimic  proba- 
tion is  true  in  fact  and  valid  in  principle,  then  in  the  vital  fact 
of  guilt  we  do  '^  stand  chargeable  with  the  full  latitude  of  his  trans- 
gression," and,  '^'separate  from  all  actual  voluntary  ott'ense,  equally 
guilty  with  him,"  which  fact  itself,  and  without  any  imputation  of 
Adam's  personal  deed,  seems  to  us  "  repugnant  equally  to  our  con- 
sciousness and  to  the  equity  of  the  case." 

With  the  repudiation  of  an  extreme,  and  now  obsolete,  form  of 
imputation,  Mr.  Watson  still  adheres  to  the  economy  of  cai.vimstic 
Adamic  representation  in  all  that  jiroperly  belongs  to  doctrink. 
it.  He  holds  it  as  presented  in  the  interpretation  of  Dr.  Watts.' 
In  this  interpretation  it  is  doctrinally  one  with  the  present  Calvin- 
istic  theory  of  Adamic  representation.  In  the  primitive  probation 
Adam  represented  tlie  race,  and  on  the  ground  of  that  representa- 
tion the  penalty  of  his  sin  falls  upon  them  as  upon  himself.  Watson 
goes  into  detail,  and  points  out  the  three  forms  of  death  which  are 
thus  penally  consequent  to  the  imj)utation  of  Adam's  sin  :  physi- 
cal, spiritual,  and  eternal  death.  He  does  not  pause  even  at  the 
last.  "  The  third  consequence  is  eternal  death,  separation  from 
God,  and  endless  banishment  from  his  glory  in  a  future  state. 
This  follows  from  both  the  above  joremises — from  the  federal  char- 
acter of  Adam,  and  from  the  eternal  life  given  by  Christ  being 
opposed  by  the  apostle  to  the  death  derived  from  Adam."^  Thus 
all  are  subject  to  the  full  penalty  of  Adam's  sin.  Infants  are  thus 
subject  :  "  The  fact  of  their  being  born  liable  to  death,  a  part  of 
the  penalty,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  they  were  born  under  the 
whole  malediction."'  The  discussion  of  this  j)oint  is  thus  con- 
cluded :  "  Having  thus  established  the  import  of  the  death  threat- 
ened as  the  penalty  of  Adam's  transgression  to  include  corporal, 
moral,  or  spiritual  and  eternal  death,  and  showed  that  the  sentence 
included  also  the  whole  of  his  jiosterity,  our  next  step  is,"  etc." 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  a  common  native  condemnation  and  damna- 
bleness  through  a  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam  as  legal  repre- 
sentative of  the  race  in  the  primitive  probation.  There  is  no 
recognition  of  any  realistic  oneness  of  the  race  with  Adam,  nor  of 
a  sin  of  our  nature  in  the  sense  of  j^unitive  desert. 

In  Dr.  Pope's  discussion  of  original  sin  there  is  the  sense  of  a 
common  hereditary  guilt  or  condemnation  in   conse-      doctrine  of 
quence  of  the  Adamic  connection  of  the  race,     ''lie-      pope- 
reditary  guilt  is  not  expressly  stated  in  the  form  of  a  proposition  : 
the  phrase  is  of  later  than  scriptural  origin.     But  when  St.   Paul 

'  TJiPoIogical  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  pp.  53-55.  '  Ibid.,  p.  55. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  58.  •*  Ibid.,  p.  61. 


510  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

establishes  the  connection  between  sin  and  death  as  its  comprehen- 
sive penalty  he  teaches  that  the  condemnation  of  the  first  sin  reigns 
over  all  mankind  as  in  some  sense  one  with  Adam."'  In  the  elab- 
oration of  this  summary  statement  of  doctrine  the  same  sense  is  re- 
peatedly expressed.  The  words  of  Paul  in  Eom.  v,  12,  are  inter- 
preted as  "  asserting  that  in  divine  imputation  all,  in  some  sense, 
sinned  originally  in  Adam.  .  .  .  They  sinned  in  Adam,  though  not 
guilty  of  the  act  of  his  sin:  this,  then,  is  hereditary  condemnation 
on  those  who  were  not  personal  transgressors  and  on  them  all.^'^ 

The  above  citations,  to  which  many  of  like  meaning  might  be 
UNIVERSAL  added,  clearly  assert  a  universal  guilt  and  condemna- 
ADAMic  SIN.  tion  through  a  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam,  but 
are  quite  indefinite  as  to  the  mode  of  that  participation.  It  is  true 
that  in  the  denial  of  any  sharing  of  the  race  in  his  sinful  deed  the 
higher  realism,  such  as  Shedd  maintains,  is  logically  excluded;  but 
beyond  this  there  is  all  the  indefiniteness  which  lies  in  the  words, 
"  that  in  divine  imputation  all,  in  some  sense,  sinned  originally  in 
Adam."  Yet  a  question  so  prominent  in  doctrinal  anthropology 
could  not  be  omitted  by  such  a  writer  as  Dr.  Pope,  and  in  several 
places  his  views  are  given.  We  cannot  think  him  entirely  self- 
consistent,  for,  as  we  understand  his  terms,  his  theory  of  the 
Adamic  connection  of  the  race  in  the  Edenic  probation  is  some- 
times the  realistic,  and  sometimes  the  representative.  The  funda- 
mental difference  of  these  theories,  as  we  have  elsewhere  shown, 
precludes  consistency  in  the  holding  of  both.  "  The  nature  is  con- 
demned, and  yet  it  is  universally  redeemed.  However  difficult 
it  may  be,  we  must  receive  the  fact  of  a  human  nature,  abstracted 
from  the  persons  who  inherit  it,  lost  and  marred  in  Adam  and  found 
or  retrieved  in  Christ."  ^  "  The  sin  of  Adam  was  expiated  as  rep- 
resenting the  sin  of  the  race  as  such,  or  of  human  nature,  or  of 
mankind  :  a  realistic  conception  which  was  not  borrowed  from  phil- 
osophic realism,  and  which  no  nominalism  can  ever  really  dislodge 
from  the  New  Testament. "  "*  The  ruling  ideas  of  these  citations 
belong  to  the  realistic  mode  of  the  Adamic  connection  of  the  race 
as  the  ground  of  native  sinfulness  ;  nor  can  they  be  interpreted 
consistently  with  any  other  theory.  "  Original  sin  sprang  from 
the  federal  constitution  of  the  race :  one  in  the  unity  of  the  unlim- 
ited many."*  This  is  clearly  and  definitely  the  representative 
mode   of  a  common  Adamic    guilt.     In  the  use  and   meaning   of 

'  Pope  :  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  48.  "^  Ibid.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  58. 

•*  Wesley  Memorial   Volume,   art.    "  Methodist  Doctrine,"  by  Dr.  Pope,  pp. 
177,  178.     Cited  in  Summer's  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  43. 
^  Pope  :  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  62. 


ARMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  511 

terms,  as  clearly  seen  in  the  history  of  doctrinal  anthropology,  the 
federal  constitution  of  the  race  means  that  Adam  was  divinely  con- 
stituted the  legal  representative  of  his  offspring,  and  that  on  this 
ground  all  are  justly  involved  in  the  guilt  and  punishment  of 
liis  sin. 

In  addition  to  these  irreconcilable  modes  of  a  common  Adamic 
guilt.  Dr.  Pope  holds  the  intrinsic  sinfulness  of  the  dkpravity 
corruption  of  nature  with  which  we  are  born.  Against  trily  sin. 
the  Eomisli  doctrine,  that  concupiscence  in  the  bajjtized  is  not  of 
the  nature  of  sin,  he  controversially  says :  **  As  if  baptism  could 
make  that  which  is  essentially  sinful  cease  to  be  such;  as  if  the  per- 
version of  the  will,  wliich  constitutes  us  formally  sinners  as  soon  as 
we  feel  and  assent  to  its  operation,  were  not  in  itself  sinful.  .  .  .  The 
current  Romanist  doctrine  denies  that  men  are  born  into  the  world 
with  anything  subjective  in  them  of  the  strict  nature  of  sin.  .  .  . 
In  virtue  of  this  principle  the  true  doctrine  is  ojiposed  also  to  every 
account  of  sin  which  insists  that  it  cannot  be  reckoned  such  by  a 
righteous  God  save  when  the  will  actively  consents  ;  and  that  none 
can  be  held  responsible  for  any  state  of  soul  or  action  of  life  which 
is  not  the  result  of  the  posture  of  the  W' ill  at  the  time.  There  is  an 
offending  character  behind  the  offending  will."  '  Both  the  contro- 
versial issues  of  these  passages  and  the  principles  wliich  they  assert 
must  mean  a  sinfulness  of  the  common  native  depravity  in  the 
sense  of  punitive  desert.  That  Dr.  Pope  holds  this  doctrine  he 
has  placed  beyond  question  in  declaring  that  "  Methodism  accepts 
the  article  of  the  English  Church  " — the  ninth,  which  he  immedi- 
ately cites.''  We  are  not  just  now  concerned  with  the  historical 
accuracy  of  this  statement,  but  simjily  with  Dr.  Pope's  own  view. 
After  the  characterization  of  the  common  native  corruption  derived 
from  Adam,  the  article  declares  :  "  Therefore  in  every  person  born 
into  the  world,  it  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation."  The 
whole  article,  with  these  words  in  it,  is  cited  with  manifest  personal 
approval. 

We  thus  find  iu  Pope  the  maintenance  of  three  distinct  grounds 
of  a  common  native  sinfulness  and  damnableness.  On  three 
the  ground  of  a  real  oneness  with  Adam,  and  also  on  grounds  op 
the  ground  of  a  representative  oneness,  we  share  the 
guilt  and  deserve  the  penalty  of  his  sin.  The  third  ground  is  given 
in  the  intrinsic  sinfulness  of  the  depravity  of  nature  inherited  from 
Adam.  These  views  can  neither  be  reconciled  with  each  other  nor 
with  the  determining  principles  of  Arminianism. 

'  Christian  Theologi/,  vol.  ii,  pp.  83,  84. 
"Ibid.,  p.  80. 


512  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

In  the  work  of  Dr.  Summers  both  the  realistic  and  representa- 
tive modes  of  a  common  Adamic  sin  are  rejected  and 
dismissed  as  unworthy  of  disputation.'  One  is  a  little 
surprised  at  this  summary  method,  in  view  of  the  prominence  of 
these  theories  in  doctrinal  anthropology,  and  especially  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  both,  as  we  have  seen  in  recent  citations,  are  accepted 
by  leading  Arminian  theologians.  Elsewhere  the  representative 
economy  is  accepted.  On  the  Adamic  relation  of  the  race  as  the 
source  of  original  or  birth  sin  Summers  says  :  "  The  human  spe- 
cies is  viewed  as  a  solidarity,  and  it  is  represented  by  its  head,  com- 
monly called  its  'federal  head,'  because  the  covenant  of  life  and 
death  was  made  with  him  for  himself  and  posterity."  ^  No  Calvin- 
istic  advocate  of  the  representative  theory  and  the  immediate  im- 
putation of  Adam's  sin  to  his  offspring  could  take  any  exception 
to  such  an  expression  of  his  doctrine.  As  read  and  interpreted  in 
the  light  of  historical  anthropology  it  means,  and  must  mean,  the 
immediate  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  to  the  race  on  the 
principle  of  representation. 

2.  A  Co7nmon  Justification  in  Christ. — Arminians  interpret  the 
doctrine  of  original  or  birth  sin,  not  merely  from  the  Adamic  con- 
nection of  the  race,  but  also  from  its  connection  with  the  univer- 
sal atonement.  A  common  native  damnableness  is  in  itself  too 
thoroughly  Augustinian  for  any  consistent  place  in  the  Arminian 
system.  Hence  the  Arminian  theologian  who  assumes  to  find  such 
universal  sinfulness  in  the  Adamic  connection  of  the  race  is  sure  to 
supplement  his  doctrine  with  the  balancing  or  canceling  grace  of  a 
free  justification  in  Christ.  In  this  mode  it  is  attempted  to  recon- 
cile the  doctrine  of  native  sinfulness  or  demerit  with  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  Arminiauism,  and  also  to  void  the  Calvinistic 
assumption  that  it  fully  concedes  the  ground  of  election  and  repro- 
bation. For  the  present  we  are  concerned  merely  with  the  facts  in 
the  case,  and  not  with  the  logical  validity  of  the  method. 

Arminius  defends  the  doctrine  of  his  friend  Borrius,  that  original 
POSITION  OF  sin  will  condemn  no  one,  and  that  all  who  die  in  in- 
ARMiNius.  fancy  are  saved;  that  there  is  no  future  penal  doom 
except  for  actual  sin.'  This  is  a  great  change  of  view  from  that  of 
Arminius,  previously  set  forth,  that  all  so  shared  in  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  sin  as  to  be  amenable  to  the  penalty  of  eternal  death. 
What  is  the  ground  of  this  change  ?  The  grace  of  a  universal 
atonement  which  freely  cancels  the  guilt  of  Adamic  sin:  "  Because 
God  has  taken  the  whole  human  race  into  the  grace  of  reconcilia- 

1  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  36,  37.  -  Ibid.,  p.  45. 

3  Writings,  vol.  i,  pp.  317-321. 


ARMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  513 

tion,  and  has  entered  into  ti  covenant  of  grace  with  Adam,  and  with 
the  wliole  of  his  posterity  in  him." 

The  citation  of  all  that  Fletcher  has  said  on  this  question  would 
require  much  space.  Kef  erring  to  a  prior  discussion, 
he  says:  "From  Rom.  v,  18,  I  proved  the  justification 
of  infants  :  '  As  by  the  offense  of  Adam  (says  the  apostle)  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  justification  of  life.' 
In  support  of  this  justification,  which  comes  upon  all  men  in  their 
infancy,  I  now  advance  the  following  arguments."'  We  have  no 
occasion  to  cite  these  arguments,  as  our  present  aim  is  simply  to  pre- 
sent the  doctrine  of  Fletcher  on  the  question  of  a  free  justification 
in  Christ  which  covers  the  inheritance  of  Adamic  sin.  Such  a 
doctrine  he  clearly  maintains.  The  justification  cancels  the  guilt  of 
original  sin  in  the  case  of  all  infants. 

We  have  previously  shown  that  Watson  maintained  a  strong  doc- 
trine of  original  sin  ;  that  the  sin  of  Adam  as  represent- 

.    .  OF    WATSON* 

ative  of  the  race  brought  upon  all  an  amenability  to  the 
threefold  penalty  of  spiritual,  physical,  and  eternal  death.  As  an  Ar- 
minian,  however,  he  could  not  abide  by  this  doctrine  as  a  whole  and 
unqualified  account  of  man's  moral  state.  In  itself  the  doctrine 
means,  not  only  that  we  are  all  born  with  the  desert  of  God's  wrath 
and  damnation,  but  that  all  who  die  in  infancy  might  forever  suf- 
fer the  penal  doom  of  sin.  Of  course  Watson  repudiates  the  pos- 
sibility of  such  a  consequence.  With  other  Arminians  he  supple- 
ments the  Adamic  connection  of  the  race  with  its  relation  to  the 
grace  of  a  universal  atonement.  We  must  not  view  "  the  legal 
part  of  the  whole  transaction  which  affected  our  first  parents  and 
their  posterity  separately  from  the  evangelical  provision  of  mercy 
which  was  concurrent  with  it,  and  which  included,  in  like  manner, 
both  them  and  their  whole  race.  ...  As  the  question  relates  to  the 
moral  government  of  God,  if  one  part  of  the  transaction  before  us 
is  intimately  and  inseparably  connected  with  another  and  collateral 
procedure,  it  cannot  certainly  be  viewed  in  its  true  light  but  in 
that  connection.  The  redemption  of  man  by  Christ  was  certainly 
not  an  after-thought  brought  in  upon  man's  apostasy,  it  was  a  p7'0- 
vision,  and  when  man  fell  he  found  justice  hand  in  hand  with 
mercy."'  It  is  on  the  ground  of  this  redemption  as  a  part  of  the 
divine  economy  that  Mr.  Watson  defends  the  common  Adamic  sin- 
fulness against  the  accusation  of  injustice  and  wrong. 

Any  validity  of  such  defense  must  assume  that  the  grace  of  the 

'  Works,  vol.  i,  pp.  283,  284. 

^  Watson  :  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  56. 


514  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

common  redemption  very  materially  limits  or  modifies  the  common 
native  sinfulness.     This  assumption  is  made,  and  the 

NOT  ACTUAL  t  .  pi  mi 

jusTiFicA-  gracious  relief  is  set  forth.  The  mode  of  this  relief  is 
'^^^^'  not  completely  at  one  with  Fletcher's  view.     Watson 

does  not  agree  with  him  in  the  actual  justification  of  infants. 
^'As  to  infants,  they  are  not,  indeed,  born  justified  and  regener- 
ate ;  so  that  to  say  that  original  sin  is  taken  away,  as  to  infants, 
by  Christ,  is  not  the  correct  view  of  the  case,  for  the  reason  before 
given;  but  they  are  all  born  under  the  ^free  gift,' the  effects  of 
the  'righteousness'  of  one,  which  extended  to  '^all  men;'  and 
this  free  gift  is  bestowed  on  them  in  order  to  justification  of  life, 
the  adjudging  of  the  condemned  to  live."'  This  provision  is  such 
that  all  who  die  in  infancy  must  unconditionally  share  its  grace  in 
their  salvation.  This  view  is  strongly  maintained  in  connection 
with  the  passage  just  cited.  In  the  case  of  adults,  the  blessings  of 
grace  freely  offered  in  Christ  more  than  balance  the  evil  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  sin.  "  In  all  this  it  is  impossible  to  impeach  the 
equity  of  the  divine  procedure,  since  no  man  suffers  any  loss  or  in- 
jury ultimately  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  but  by  his  own  willful  obsti- 
nacy— the  '  abounding  of  grace  '  by  Christ  having  placed  before  all 
men,  upon  their  believing,  not  merely  compensation  for  the  loss 
and  injury  sustained  by  Adam,  but  infinitely  higher  blessings,  both 
in  kind  and  degree,  than  were  forfeited  in  him."^  Such  is  the 
theodicy  which  Watson  attemj)ts. 

Dr.  Pope  maintains  a  free  justification  in  Christ  which  fully 
CONDEMNATION  covers  thc  Adamic  sin  of  the  race.  "  The  condemna- 
REMovED.  ^jon  resting  upon  the  race  as  such  is  removed  by  the 

virtue  of  the  one  oblation  beginning  with  the  beginning  of  sin.  The 
nature  of  man  received  the  atonement  once  for  all ;  God  in  Christ  is 
reconciled  to  the  race  of  Adam  ;  and  no  child  of  mankind  is  con- 
demned eternally  for  the  original  offense,  that  is,  for  the  fact  of  his 
being  born  into  a  condemned  lineage. "  ^  Summers  maintains  the 
same  doctrine.  "If  a  decree  of  condemnation  has  been  issued  against 
original  sin,  irresponsibly  derived  from  the  first  Adam,  likewise  a 
decree  of  justification  has  issued  from  the  same  court,  whose  bene- 
fits are  unconditionally  bestowed  through  the  second  Adam."  * 

We  previously  showed  that  all  these  authors  maintained  the  sin- 
suMMART  OF  fuluess  of  tlie  race,  in  the  sense  of  penal  desert,  on  the 
VIEWS.  ground  of  its  Adamic  connection.     In  the  citations  un- 

der the  present  head  they  equally  maintain  a  free  and  actual  justifi- 

'  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  59.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  57. 

^  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  59. 

^  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  39.     By  the  editor. 


ARMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  515 

cation  in  Christ — a  justification  which  cancels  the  guilt  of  original 
sin.  The  result  is,  doctrinally,  a  complete  freedom  from  the  orig- 
inal condemnation,  whether  on  the  ground  of  a  participation  in  the 
sin  of  Adam  or  of  the  corruption  of  nature  derived  from  him.  A 
qualifying  exception  should  he  made  in  the  case  of  Watson.  He 
does  not  hold  the  actual  justification  from  the  guilt  of  original  sin, 
but  a  provisional  justification  in  a  universal  atonement,  which  is 
made  "  in  order  to  "  a  universal  justification.  While  this  justifica- 
tion must  become  unconditionally  actual  in  the  case  of  all  who  die 
in  infancy,  it  is  only  conditionally  available  on  the  part  of  such  as 
reach  the  responsibilities  of  probation  :  this  is  the  special  view  of 
Watson.  It  follows,  and  is  openly  maintained,  that  no  one  can 
suffer  final  condemnation  simply  on  the  ground  of  Adamic  sin.' 

3.  Denial  of  Concessioti  to  Calvinism. — On  the  ground  of  orig- 
inal sin  as  a  just  amenability  to  the  divine  judgment  calvinistic 
and  wrath,  God  may  graciously  elect  a  part  to  salvation  assumption. 
in  Christ,  and  without  any  injustice  to  the  rest  leave  them  to  the 
penal  doom  which  their  sin  justly  deserves.  This  often-uttered 
principle  of  Calvinism  is  well  expressed  in  these  words  :  "  Cum 
omnes  homines  in  Adamo  peccaverint,  et  rei  sint  facti  maledictionis 
et  mortis  aeternae,  Deus  nemiui  fecisset  injuriam,  si  universum 
genus  humanum  in  peccato  et  raaledictione  relinquere,  ac  propter 
peccatum  damnare  voluisset."  -  If  on  the  ground  of  original  sin 
all  men  justly  deserve  the  doom  of  eternal  perdition,  then  in  the 
election  of  grace  God  might  freely  choose  a  part  to  salvation  in 
Christ,  without  any  injustice  or  wrong  in  the  reprobation  or  pre- 
tention of  the  rest,  who  are  thereby  merely  delivered  over  to  the 
doom  which  they  deserve.  On  this  ground  and  in  this  manner  Cal- 
vinism assumes  that  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  which  Arminian- 
ism  maintains  fully  concedes  the  ground  of  election  and  reproba- 
tion.^ 

Arminians  who  hold  the  strongest  doctrine  of  original  sin  must 
dispute  this  concession — must,  whether  consistently  or  arminian  dis- 
not.  This  is  uniformly  done.  It  would  be  easy  to  fill  sent. 
much  space  with  citations  in  point,  but  a  few  will  suffice.  It  will 
readily  be  seen  that  the  ground  on  which  the  Calvinistic  assump- 
tion is  denied  is  the  universality  of  the  redemption  in 

•^        .  ^  .  WATSON. 

Christ.     **'It  IS  an  easy  and  plausible  thing  to  say,  in 

the  usual  loose  and  general  way  of  stating  the  sublapsarian  doctrine, 

that  the  whole  race  having  fallen  in  Adam,  and  become  justly  liable 

'  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  pp.  399,  400. 
^  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dorf,  Predestination. 
'  Rice  :  God  Sovereign  and  Man  Free,  pp.  96-106. 


516  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

to  eternal  death,  God  might,  without  any  impeachment  of  his  jus- 
tice, in  the  exercise  of  his  sovereign  grace,  appoint  some  to  life  and 
salvation  by  Christ,  and  leave  the  others  to  their  deserved  punish- 
ment. But  this  is  a  false  view  of  the  case,  built  upon  the  false 
assumption  that  the  whole  race  were  personally  and  individually, 
in  consequence  of  Adam's  fall,  absolutely  liable  to  eternal  death. 
That  very  fact,  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  whole  scheme,  is  easy 
to  be  refuted  on  the  clearest  authority  of  Scripture ;  while  not  a 
passage  can  be  adduced,  we  may  boldly  affirm,  which  sanctions  any 
such  doctrine."'  We  shall  see  in  another  place  the  method  of 
Watson's  refutation  of  the  Calvinistic  position.  "  The  Arminian 
doctrine  in  its  purest  and  best  form  avoided  the  error 
of  the  previous  theories,  retaining  their  truth.  It  held 
the  Adamic  unity  of  the  race  :  '  in  Adam  all  have  sinned,'  and 
*  all  men  are  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,'  But  it  maintained 
also,  '  That  the  most  gracious  God  has  provided  for  all  a  remedy 
for  that  general  evil  which  was  delivered  to  us  from  Adam,  free 
and  gratuitous  in  his  beloved  Son  Jesus  Christ,  as  it  were  a  new 
and  another  Adam.  So  that  the  baneful  error  of  those  is  plainly 
apparent  who  are  accustomed  to  found  upon  that  original  sin  the 
decree  of  absolute  reprobation  invented  by  themselves.'"^  The 
inner  citation  is  from  the  Apology  of  the  Remonstrants,  and  thus 
gives  the  earliest  Arminian  view  of  this  question,  which 
clearly  receives  the  approval  of  Dr.  Pope.  "  Method- 
ism clearly  perceives  that  to  admit  that  mankind  are  actually  born 
into  the  world  justly  under  condemnation  is  to  grant  the  foundation 
of  the  whole  Calvinistic  scheme.  Granted  natal  desert  of  damna- 
tion, there  can  be  no  valid  objection  to  the  sovereign  election  of  a 
few  out  of  the  reprobate  mass,  or  to  limited  atonement,  irresistible 
grace,  and  final  perseverance  to  secure  the  present  and  eternal  salva- 
tion of  the  sovereignly  predestinated  number.  .  .  .  Representative 
theologians  of  Methodism  from  the  beginning  until  now,  from 
Fletcher  to  Pope,  have  overthrown  this  fundamental  teaching  of 
Calvinism  with  the  express  statement  of  the  Scriptures,  setting 
over  against  the  death-dealing  first  Adam  the  life-giving  second."* 

II.  The  Issue  with  Calvinism. 
We  have  seen  the  position  of  Calvinism,  that  original  sin  consti- 
tutes a  real  and  sufficient  ground  of  election  and  reprobation,  and 
also  its  assumption,  that  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  original  sin  fully 

'  Watson  :  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  pp.  394,  395. 

'  Pope  :  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  78,  79. 

3  Summers  :  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  38,  39.     By  the  editor. 


AIIMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  517 

concedes  tliis  ground.  We  have  also  seen,  in  a  general  view,  the 
manner  in  which  Arminians  defend  their  doctrine  against  this  as- 
sumption, and  have  given  their  answer  in  various  citations.  We 
have  intimated  that  the  method  of  tliis  defense  is  open  to  review, 
and  we  take  up  the  topic  of  the  present  section  for  this  purpose. 

1.  Underlying  Principle  of  the  Issue. — The  principle  is,  that 
original  sin  in  the  sense  of  demerit  and  damnableness  is  a  real  and 
sufficient  ground  of  election  and  reprobation  ;  or,  a  little  more  ex- 
actly, that  such  original  sin  would  clear  the  divine  reprobation  of  a 
part  of  mankind  of  all  injustice  and  wrong.  This  position  is 
thoroughly  valid.  The  purely  gracious  election  and  salvation  of  a 
part  could  be  no  injustice  to  the  reprobate,  nor  could  their  own 
reprobation,  as  they  would  thereby  simply  be  delivered  over  to  their 
merited  doom.  There  can  be  no  injustice  or  wrong  in  the  inflic- 
tion of  deserved  penalty.  Election  and  reprobation  may  still  be 
disputed  as  facts,  as  may  also  the  original  sin  which  is  claimed 
to  justify  the  latter ;  but  if  such  universal  sinfulness  be  a  reality, 
then,  so  far  as  justice  is  concerned,  the  divine  reprobation  of  a  part 
of  mankind  may  be  thoroughly  vindicated. 

2.  Real  Point  of  the  Issue. — The  real  point  is,  whether  the  Ar- 
minian  doctrine  of  original  sin  concedes  the  ground  of  election 
and  reprobation  as  maintained  in  Calvinism ;  or,  more  definitely, 
whether  Arminianism  holds  a  form  of  original  sin  which,  with  the 
gracious  election  and  salvation  of  a  part  of  mankind,  would  justify 
the  divine  reprobation  of  the  rest.  Whatever  may  be  the  truth  in 
this  case,  the  fact  of  such  reprobation  would  still  be  an  open  question. 
As  election  and  reprobation  are  no  logical  implication  of  a  sufficient 
ground  in  original  sin,  so  the  Arminian  concession  of  such  a  ground 
could  in  no  sense  imply  their  actuality.  Yet  the  concession  of 
such  a  ground,  or  the  holding  a  form  of  original  sin  which  consti- 
tutes such  a  ground,  would  go  to  the  dialectic  advantage  of  Cal- 
vinism against  Arminianism,  because  it  would  thoroughly  void  an 
important  argument  against  reprobation.  The  whole  argument 
against  its  injustice  would  thus  be  sacrificed.  Whether  Arminian- 
ism concedes  this  ground  must  be  determined  in  view  of  its  doctrine 
of  original  sin,  together  with  its  doctrine  of  a  common  justification 
through  the  grace  of  Christ.  We  are  thus  brought  to  the  question 
of  special  interest  in  the  present  section. 

3.  Arminian  Treatment  of  the  Issue. — We  already  have  the  ma- 
terial for  the  required  review.  It  was  given  partly  in  citations  from 
Arminian  theologians  on  original  sin,  partly  in  citations  on  a  com- 
mon infant  justification  in  Christ,  and  partly  in  showing  how  they 
set  forth  this  justification  as  the  disproof  of  any  ground  of  election 

.35  ' 


518  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

and  reprobation  in  their  doctrine  of  original  sin.  In  the  present 
inquiry  we  shall  need  only  the  ruling  ideas  presented  under  those 
several  heads. 

The  doctrine  of  original  sin  maintained  in  the  previous  citations 
THE  NATIVE  IS  substautially  the  Augustinian  doctrine.  Less  stress 
SINFULNESS,  jg  j^id  upou  thc  intriusic  sinfulness  and  demerit  of  the 
common  native  depravity,  though,  as  we  have  seen,  this  form  of 
original  sin  is  repeatedly  asserted  ;  but  the  common  sharing  in  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  and  the  common  amenability  to  the  penalty 
which  he  incurred  in  the  three  forms  of  spiritual,  physical,  and 
eternal  death,  receive  frequent  and  unqualified  expression.  It  is 
cALviNisTic  at  this  point  that  the  Calvinist  takes  up  the  question 
ASSUMPTION,  aj^j  affirms  that  this  doctrine  of  original  sin  concedes 
the  ground  of  election  and  reprobation.  We  must  say  that  the  Cal- 
vinist is  right.  If  through  a  common  sharing  in  the  sin  of  Adam, 
or  on  account  of  a  sinful  nature  inherited  from  him,  all  are  justly 
amenable  to  the  penalty  of  eternal  death,  then  in  the  election  of 
grace  God  may  without  any  injustice  or  wrong  leave  a  part  to  their 
deserved  doom. 

The  Arminian  replies,  that  we  have  as  yet  but  a  part  of  the  case  ; 
ARMiNiAN  that  if  there  is  a  universal  condemnation  through  the 
DEFENSE.  gjjj   Qf  Adam,  there   is  also  a   universal  justification 

through  the  grace  of  Christ ;  that  the  justification  cancels  the  con- 
demnation. Prior  citations  fully  verify  this  general  statement. 
On  the  ground  of  this  free  justification  it  is  denied  that  any  con- 
cession is  made  to  Calvinism  in  the  interest  of  election  and  repro- 
bation. This  is  the  uniform  Arminian  defense,  of  long  standing 
and  often  repeated  ;  so  that  to  question  its  directness  or  sufficiency 
may  seem  rash  and  offensive.  Yet  we  must  think  it  neither  direct 
nor  sufficient ;  and,  more  than  this,  that  it  leads  to  doctrinal  con- 
fusion and  contradiction.  It  does  not  go  to  the  point  of  the  issue, 
which  is  the  state  of  the  race  simply  from  its  Adamic  connection. 
Here,  as  seen  in  previous  citations,  the  doctrine  maintained  is  sub- 
stantially one  with  the  Calvinistic.  Here  is  where  the  Calvinist 
makes  his  point  and  claims  that  the  ground  of  reprobation,  so  far 
as  justice  is  concerned,  is  fully  conceded.  This-  is  the  fact  in  the 
case  ;  nor  can  its  polemical  fairness  be  questioned. 

If  we  agree  with  the  Calvinist  on  the  consequence  of  the  Adamic 
connection  of  the  race,  that  all  are  thereby  constituted 

NOT  THE  REAL        ,  .  '  •'  . 

POINT  OF  THE  siuners  in  the  sense  of  punitive  desert,  there  is  where 
ISSUE.  ^g  ought  to  meet  the  issue — where  those  who  hold  the 

common  Adamic  sinfulness  ought  to  meet  it.  Our  theologians,  as 
we  have  seen,  refuse  to  do  this,  but  interpose  a  common  justification 


ARMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  519 

in  Christ,  and  on  this  ground  dispute  the  Calvinistic  position.  The 
real  issue  is  thus  avoided.  There  are  here  three  closely  connected 
questions  :  the  consequence  of  Adam's  sin  to  the  race  ;  the  manner 
in  which  God  has  actually  dealt  with  the  race  as  involved  in  that 
consequence ;  and  the  manner  in  which  he  might  justly  have  dealt 
with  it.  "We  have  seen  the  substantial  agreement  on  the  first  ques- 
tion— that  by  the  sin  of  Adam  all  are  constituted  sinners.  There 
is  a  wide  difference  on  the  second  question.  With  the  Calvinist, 
God  dealt  with  the  sinful  race  in  the  mode  of  election  and  repro- 
bation— redeeming  a  part  of  mankind  ;  with  the  Arminian,  in  the 
mode  of  a  universal  atonement.  On  this  issue  the  truth  is  surely 
with  the  Arminian.  But  this  gives  him  no  logical  right  to  shun 
the  third  question — the  manner  in  which  God  might  have  dealt 
with  the  race.  The  Calvinist  asserts  that,  as  by  the  sin  of  Adam 
all  men  deserve  an  eternal  penal  doom,  God  might  justly  exclude  a 
part  from  the  grace  of  redemption.  If  we  hold  the  Adamic  sin- 
fulness in  which  that  position  is  grounded  we  must  meet  the  issue 
at  this  point.  To  answer  that  God  has  not  so  dealt  with  the  race 
is  to  evade  the  question  ;  and  there  is  no  escape  in  this  mode.  The 
doctrine  of  a  common  Adamic  sin,  with  the  desert  of  an  eternal 
penal  doom,  binds  us  to  its  logical  implications.  To  say  that  God 
could  not  justly  inflict  this  penalty  on  all  mankind  is  to  impeach 
his  justice  in  the  common  amenability  which  is  maintained.  If 
the  universal  execution  of  the  penalty  would  be  unjust,  the  uni- 
versal sentence  of  condemnation  would  be  unjust.  The  imposition 
of  an  unjust  condemnation  is  as  contrary  to  the  divine  equity  as 
the  infliction  of  undeserved  punishment. 

The  doctrine  maintained  in  previous  citations  from  Arminian 
theologians  means  that  the  offspring  of  Adam,  simply  native  de- 
on  account  of  his  sin,  and  without  any  personal  fault  merit. 
of  their  own,  might  justly  be  doomed  to  an  eternal  penal  death.  It 
means  that,  previous  to  the  common  justification  in  Christ,  all  are 
under  this  condemnation,  and  might  justly  suffer  the  infliction  of 
this  penal  doom.  "  Calvinists  are  now  ashamed  of  consigning  in- 
fants to  the  torments  of  hell  :  they  begin  to  extend  their  election 
to  them  all."  '  Fletcher  said  this  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago. 
Yet  Fletcher  himself  maintained  a  doctrine  of  original  sin  which 
means  the  desert  of  such  a  doom  ;  and  many  Arminians  in  his  suc- 
cession have  done  the  same.  If  the  infliction  of  such  a  doom 
would  deeply  offend  one's  sensibilities,  why  should  not  the  doctrine 
of  its  just  desert  equally  offend  one's  moral  reason  ?  If  Calvinists 
are  ashamed  of  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  it  seems  quite 
'  Fletcher  :  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  284. 


520  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

time  that  Arminians  were  ashamed  of  the  doctrine  of  a  universal 
infant  desert  of  damnation. 

The  Arminian  doctrine  of  a  universal  justification  in  Christ,  so 
far  from  disproving  this  sense  of  infant  ffuilt,  strongly 

THE     JUSTIFI-  .  -r  p      1    ■         .  •  /.  •  •  i  •  •       •  . 

CATION  MEANS    affirms  it.     It  this  ]ustmcation  is  a  reality,  as  it  is  uni- 
THE  DEMERIT.    £^^,^1^  jjgjjj  ^q  jjg^  -^^3^  ^jjg  g^^jj^  ^f  original  sin  must 

also  be  a  reality.  In  the  order  of  facts  the  guilt  must  precede  its 
cancellation.  In  the  previous  citations  we  have  seen  that  both 
are  held  to  be  realities,  and  that  the  innocence  of  childhood  is  not 
its  natural  birthright,  but  the  result  of  its  justification  from  the 
guilt  of  original  sin.  Thus  the  one  is  set  over  against  the  other  ; 
and  each  is  held  to  interpret  the  other.  ''As  ly  one  man's  dis- 
obedience many  were  made  (or  constituted,  both  in  fact  and  by  im- 
putation) sinners,  so  hy  the  obedience  of  One  shall  many  be  made 
righteous.  ...  In  whatever  sense  the  redemption  was  an  act  ex- 
ternal to  the  race  and  for  its  benefit,  the  fall  was  external  to  the 
successive  generations  of  mankind  and  for  their  condemnation. 
Here  it  is  obvious,  or  ought  to  be  obvious,  that  the  condemnation 
and  the  life  are  correlatives  :  the  judgment  is  the  opposite  of  the 
reign  in  life  as  the  result  of  abundance  of  grace."  "  There  are 
two  aspects  of  Christ's  redeeming  intervention,  one  absolutely  uni- 
versal and  one  particular.  As  to  the  former,  in  whatsoever  sense 
the  race  of  man  died  in  Adam  it  lives  again  in  Christ."  '  Thus  a 
real  justification  of  the  race  in  Christ  means  a  real  condemnation 
and  guilt  of  the  race  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam ;  and,  con- 
versely, a  real  condemnation  in  Adam  means  a  real  justification  in 
Christ  as  the  cancellation  of  the  common  Adamic  sin.  Thus  the 
justification  which  is  held  to  cancel  the  common  guilt  of  original 
sin  means  the  prior  reality  of  this  guilt,  with  its  amenability  to  the 
penal  doom  of  sin,  and  that  such  is  the  natural  state  of  all  infants. 
4.  Doctrinal  Confusion  and  Contradiction. — The  Arminian 
theologians  who  hold  the  stronger  view  of  original  sin  do  not  ad- 
here to  their  own  doctrine,  but  depart  from  it  in  a  manner  which 
involves  confusion  and  contradiction.  This  appears  in  their  per- 
sistent insistence  that  the  universal  justification  shall  be  recognized 
as  a  part  of  their  doctrine,  and  in  constantly  setting  forth  this  jus- 
tification as  the  vindication  of  the  divine  economy  in  the  universal 
Adamic  guilt  and  condemnation.  But  no  justly  imposed  guilt  or 
penalty  can  need  any  such  vindication;  and  the  constant  setting 
it  forth  not  only  betrays  serious  doubt  of  the  consistency  of  a  com- 
mon Adamic  sin  with  the  divine  justice,  but  really  means  its  incon- 
sistency. 

'  Pope  :  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii,  pp.  48,  49  ;  vol.  iii,  p.  435. 


ARMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  521 

Such  are  the  implications  in  the  maintenance  of  the  position  that, 
without  the  universal  atonement  in  Christ,  God  could 
not  have  permitted  the  propagation  of  the  race,  and  for 
the  reason  of  its  native  sinfulness.  This  is  so  familiar  a  fact  that 
references  are  quite  needless.  We  cite  a  single  instance  :  "  No 
race  unredeemed,  and  without  hope  of  redemption,  could  in  the  uni- 
verse of  a  holy  God  continue  to  propagate  its  generations."  *  If  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin  be  true  in  the  sense  in  which  we  have  found 
it  maintained,  there  could  be  no  hiuderance  in  the  divine  justice 
to  such  propagation,  because  no  one  would  suffer  any  undeserved 
penal  doom.  The  denial  of  the  propagation  of  the  race,  except 
under  an  economy  of  universal  redemption,  is  a  part  of  the  argu- 
ment to  clear  the  divine  justice  of  all  reason  of  impeachment  in  the 
matter  of  original  sin.  There  can  be  no  reason  for  this  defense, 
except  with  the  consent  that  original  sin,  with  its  penalty,  is  in 
itself  an  injustice.  This  again  is  a  departure  from  the  doctrine 
maintained,  Avith  the  result  of  confusion  and  contradiction.  Such, 
too,  is  the  implication  of  another  point  frequently  made  :  that  any 
evil  which  we  may  suffer  through  the  sin  of  Adam  is  entirely  con- 
sistent with  the  divine  justice,  if  an  equal  good  is  conferred  or 
attainable  through  the  redemption  in  Christ.^  The  principle  of 
compensation  is  of  value  in  respect  to  providential  suffering,  but  is 
irrelevant  and  valueless  in  the  present  question.  If  the  penalties 
of  original  sin  are  in  themselves  consistent  with  the  divine  justice 
no  compensatory  provision  is  needed  for  their  vindication ;  if 
inconsistent,  no  such  provision  can  justify  them.  Only  by  a 
departure  from  the  asserted  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  with  the 
concession  of  its  injustice,  can  such  a  vindication  be  consistently 
attempted. 

There  is  an  open  tendency  to  drop  eternal  death  from  the  penalties 
of  original  sin,  and  to  limit  the  common  amenability  to     qualifying 
the  two  forms  of  spiritual  and  physical  death.     This     '"'^^  penalty 

J  .  .  O*"    ORIGINAL 

has  actually  been  done,  and  in  some  instances  by  those     sin. 
who  have  openly  affirmed  the  common  amenability  to  the  penalty 
of  eternal  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.     In  opposition  to 
that  view  the  point  is  definitely  made  that  actual  personal  sinning 
is  the  only  ground  of  such  penalty.'     The  most  serious  aspect  of 

'  Pope  :  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  296. 

*  Wesley  :  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  589  ;  Watson  :  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  57,  60. 

'  Wesley:  Works,  vol.  v,  pp.  556,  577 ;  Watson  :  Theological  Institutes,  vol. 
ii,  pp.  397-400  ;  Pope  :  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  59 ;  vol.  iii,  p.  437 ; 
Curry  :  Fragments,  pp.  164,  165. 

35  • 


522  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

the  doctrine  is  thus  discarded,  but  at  the  cost  of  consistency,  and 
in  some  instances  with  the  consequence  of  self-contradiction. 

With  the  two  forms  of  penal  death,  the  principle  remains,  that  all 
THE  PRINCIPLE  ^^J  J^^tly  bc  puuishcd  for  a  sin  in  the  commission  of 
REMAINS.  which  they  had  no  agency,  or  for  a  corruption  of  nat- 

ure in  the  origin  of  which  they  had  no  part.     This  is  the  real  per- 
plexity of  the  question.     Nor  is  there  any  rational  solution,  nor  re- 
lief even,  in  the  dismission  of  eternal  death  as  a  penalty 

EDWARDS.  •  •  J.  »/ 

of  Adamic  sin.  ''  The  force  of  the  reasons  brought 
against  imputing  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  (if  there  be  any  force 
in  them)  lies  in  this,  that  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  not  one.  But 
this  lies  as  properly  against  charging  a  part  of  the  guilt  as  the 
whole.  For  Adam's  posterity,  by  not  being  the  same  with  him, 
had  no  more  hand  in  a  little  of  what  was  done  than  in  the  whole. 
They  were  as  absolutely  free  from  being  concerned  in  that  act 
partly  as  they  were  wholly.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  be  brought 
why  one  man's  sin  cannot  be  justly  reckoned  to  another's  account  who 
was  not  then  in  being,  in  the  whole  of  it,  but  what  will  as  properly 
lie  against  its  being  reckoned  to  him  in  any  part,  so  as  that  he 
should  be  subject  to  any  condemnation  or  punishment  on  that  ac- 
count. If  those  reasons  are  good,  all  the  difference  there  can  be  is 
this,  that  to  bring  a  great  punishment  on  infants  for  Adam's  sin  is 
a  great  act  of  injustice,  and  to  bring  a  comparatively  small  punish- 
ment is  a  smaller  act  of  injustice,  but  not,  that  this  is  not  as  truly 
atid  demonstrably  an  act  of  injustice  as  the  other."  '  This  reasoning 
is  conclusive  of  our  own  position,  and  none  the  less  so  because  Ed- 
wards aimed  at  the  support  of  his  own  strong  doctrine 
BLEDSOE.  ^j  original  sin.     "  We  hold  this  to  be  a  solid  and  un- 

answerable argument ;  and  we  hold  also  that  God  can  no  more 
commit  a  small  act  of  injustice  than  a  great  one.  Hence,  in  the 
eye  of  reason  there  is  no  medium  between  rejecting  the  whole  of 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  ceasing  to  object  against  the 
imputation  of  the  whole  of  it  as  inconsistent  with  the  justice  and 
goodness  of  God.  We  may  arbitrarily  wipe  out  a  portion  of  it  in 
order  to  relieve  our  imagination  ;  but  this  brings  no  relief  to  the 
calm  and  passionless  reason.  It  may  still  the  wild  tumults  of  emo- 
tion, but  it  cannot  silence  the  voice  of  the  intellect."* 
Watson  makes  the  same  point,  and  really  with  the  same 
aim  as  Edwards.  Having  asserted,  and  supported  by  argument,  the 
common  amenability  to  the  penalty  of  eternal  death  on  account  of 
the  sin  of  Adam,  he  says :  "  The  justice  of  this  is  objected  to,  a 
point  which  will  be  immediately  considered  ;  but  it  is  now  sufficient 
'  Edwards  :  Works,  vol.  ii,  pp.  494,  495.  ">  Bledsoe  :  Theodicy,  p.  260. 


ARMINIAN  TREATMENT  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  523 

to  Bay  that  if  the  making  the  descendants  of  Adam  liable  to  eternal 
death,  because  of  his  offense,  be  unjust,  the  infliction  of  temporal 
death  is  so  also,  the  duration  of  the  punishment  making  no  differ- 
ence in  the  simple  question  of  justice.  If  punishment,  wliether  of 
Joss  or  oi  pain,  be  unjust,  its  measure  and  duration  may  be  a  greater 
or  a  less  injustice;  but  it  is  unjust  in  every  degree."' 

The  reasoning  in  the  above  citations  is  thoroughly  valid  and 
conclusive.  Nor  do  the  Scriptures  allow  any  such  dis-  ^„p  RyAsoN- 
tinction  between  temporal  and  eternal  penalties,  or  ing  valid. 
make  any  exception  in  case  of  the  latter.  But  no  Arminian  can 
abide  by  the  whole  doctrine ;  for  it  is  contradictory  to  all  the 
ruling  principles  of  his  system.  A  doctrine  which  means  that  an 
infant  of  the  thousandth  generation  from  Adam  might 

°  °  THK     CONTRA- 

for  his  sin  be  justly  doomed  to  an  eternal  penal  death  diction  of 
is  too  heavy  a  load  for  the  Arminian  faith.  Calvinism  ^««'nianism. 
itself  no  longer  attempts  to  bear  this  burden.  Indeed,  the  Armin- 
ian retreat  is  no  surprise.  Instances  appear  in  previous  citations 
and  references.  First,  in  treating  original  sin  simply  in  view  of 
the  Adamic  connection  of  the  race,  a  common  amenability  to  the 
penalty  of  eternal  death  on  account  of  Adam's  sin  is  openly  asserted 
and  maintained  ;  then  in  treating  the  question  in  other  relations, 
that  amenability  is  just  as  openly  denied  and  controverted. 

We  may  instance  the  case  of  Mr.  Watson  ;  certainly  not  for  the 
purpose  of  pointing  out  his  inconsistency  as  an  end,  confusion  of 
but  rather  as  a  means  of  showing  that  the  doctrine  of  doctrine. 
original  sin  which  he  maintained  must  lead  any  Arminian  into  doc- 
trinal confusion  and  contradiction.  We  have  seen  that  he  asserted, 
and  supported  by  argument,  the  common  amenability  to  the  penalty 
of  eternal  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  Again  we  have 
seen  him  discarding  this  position,  and  asserting  that  actual  personal 
sinning  is  the  only  ground  of  such  amenability.  Then,  in  contro- 
verting the  doctrine  of  reprobation  in  its  sublapsarian  form,  which 
maintains  that,  as  for  the  sin  of  Adam  all  men  are  justly  amenable 
to  the  penalty  of  eternal  death,  therefore  in  the  election  of  grace 
God  might  omit  a  part  and  justly  leave  them  to  their  deserved  doom, 
Mr.  Watson  says :  ''In  whatever  light  the  subject  be  viewed,  no 
fault,  in  any  right  construction,  can  be  chargeable  upon  the  persons 
so  punished,  or,  as  we  may  rather  say,  destroyed,  since  punishment 
supposes  a  judicial  proceeding,  which  this  act  cuts  short.  For  either 
the  reprobates  are  destroyed  for  a  pure  reason  of  sovereignty,  with- 
out any  reference  to  their  sinfulness,  and  thus  all  criminality  is  left 
out  of  the  consideration  ;  or  they  are  destroyed  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
'  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  55. 


524  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

to  which  they  were  never  consenting,  or  for  personal  faults  resulting 
from  a  corruption  of  nature  which  they  brought  into  the  world 
with  them,  and  which  God  wills  not  to  correct,  and  they  have  no 
power  to  correct  themselves.  Every  received  notion  of  justice  is 
thus  violated. "  '  That  this  passage  is  openly  contradictory  to  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin  maintained  by  Watson  is  manifest ;  yet  it 
is  thoroughly  Arminian  and  presents  views  to  which  every  Armin- 
ian  must  come  in  maintaining  the  ruling  principles  of  his  own  sys- 
tem against  the  opposing  tenets  of  Calvinism. 

In  the  way  of  further  illustration  we  may  instance  the  case  of 
Fletcher.     In  moral  support  of  his  doctrine  of  original 

TTI  li'TOHFR 

sin  he  cites  from  the  Homily  on  the  Nativity  :  "  Thus, 
in  Adam,  all  men  became  universally  mortal,  having  in  themselves 
nothing  but  everlasting  damnation  of  body  and  soul."  There  is 
nothing  in  the  citation  which  is  not  in  his  own  doctrine.  Yet  as  an 
Arminian  he  very  naturally,  and  very  properly  as  well,  appends  a 
note  :  "  Prejudiced  persons,  who,  instead  of  considering  the  entire 
system  of  truth,  run  away  with  a  part  detached  from  the  whole, 
will  be  offended  here,  as  if  our  Church  (of  England)  'damned  every 
body.''  But  the  candid  reader  will  easily  observe  that,  instead  of 
dooming  any  one  to  destruction,  she  only  declares  ttiat  the  Saviour 
finds  all  men  in  a  state  of  condemnation  and  misery,  where  they 
would  eternally  remain  were  it  not  for  the  compassionate  equity 
of  our  gracious  God,  which  does  not  permit  him  to  sentence  to  a 
consciousness  of  eternal  torment  any  one  of  his  creatures  for  a  sin 
of  which  they  never  were  personally  guilty,  and  of  which,  conse- 
quently, they  can  never  have  any  consciousness."''  Yet  a  common 
amenability  to  the  penalty  of  eternal  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
Adam  is  in  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  which  Fletcher  maintains  ; 
in  the  Homily  on  the  Nativity  from  which  he  cites  in  its  moral 
support;  and  in  the  passage  just  now  cited  from  himself.  But  in 
this  same  passage  such  common  amenability  is  really  denied,  and 
denied  on  the  ground  of  the  divine  equity  ;  for  equity  is  still  equity, 
though  qualified  as  compassionate.  That  the  divine  equity  could 
not  permit  the  eternal  punishment  of  any  one  simply  on  the  ground 
of  so  alien  a  sin  as  Adam's,  must  mean  that  such  a  doom  would  be 
unjust.  But  if  the  infliction  of  such  a  penalty  would  be  unjust, 
there  could  be  no  just  amenability  to  its  infliction,  and,  therefore, 
no  amenability  at  all.  Thus  there  is  doctrinal  confusion  and 
contradiction  ;  a  very  sure  result  in  any  case  where  it  is  attempted 
to  carry  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  native  demerit  into  the  Ar- 
minian system. 

'  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  342.  *  Works,  vol.  iii,  p.  256. 


INDKX. 


\  PAGK 

Abelard,  view  of  atonement ii,  126 

Ability,  imtural ii,  288 

Acceptilation,  as  related  to  atone- 
ment    ii,  1 63 

Adoption,  and  sonship ii,  337 

Advent,  the  second,  doctrine  of. .  ii,  440 
theory  of  a  figurative  advent.  . .  441 
premillennial    theory ;    concomi- 
tants of  the  advent 443 

objections   to   the  premillennial 

view ;  the  better  economy 446 

Agnosticism,  denial  of  divine  per- 
sonality    i,  1 3*7 

the  infinite  of  agnosticism 139 

no  such  infinite 142 

a  mere  bulk  infinite 143 

the  true  infinite 144 

God  the  true  infinite 147 

the  infinite  truly  knowable 151 

Amyraut,  theory  of  atonement.  ..  ii,  217 

Anderson,  truth  regenerative ii,  335 

Andrews,  antiquity  of  man i,  365 

Angels,  unknown  to  science i,  289 

known  only  in  Scripture 290 

creation   of;    realities   of  exist- 
ence    ii,  490 

with  personal  endowments 491 

the  good  angels 493 

ministries  of 494 

evil  angels  ;  the  evil  one 497 

Anselm,  ontological  argument. ...  i,    73 

theory  of  atonement ii,  107 

Anthropological     argument,    prin- 
ciples of;  organic  completeness 

of  man i,    97 

spirituality  of   mind 98 

mental  powers 102 

moral  powers 103 

provisions  for  knowledge 104 

the  sensibilities 105 

proofs  of  a  moral  nature  in  God.  106 

Anthropology,  doctrines  of i,  353 

cardinal  in  theology 354 

Antitheism,  determining  facts  of; 

antitheistic  theories i,  110 

Apollinarianism,  Christology  of ;  de- 
nies  to   Christ  a   human   soul ; 

grounded  in   trichotomy ii,    49 

denies  the  true  incarnation....  60 


PAGB 

Apollinaris,  Cliristology  of ii,    49 

Apologetics,  effective  work  of . . . .  i,    34 

Aquiuijs,  conservation  a  creation.  .  i,  316 

Argyll,  antiquity  of  man i,  370 

Arianisni,  the  Christology  of;   di- 
vinity of  the  Son  denied ii,    48 

hence,    the    divine    incarnation; 

the  Christology  false 49 

Aristotle,  definition  of  God i,    59 

Arius,  and  Arianisni ii,    48 

Arminius,  definition  of  sin i,  528 

a  common  Adamie  sin ii,  505 

justification  of  all  in  Christ. . . .  512 
Assurance,  of  sonship  ;  the  mental 

state ii,  339 

truth  of  assurance 340 

sources  of  assurance 341 

witness  of  the  Spirit 342 

a  direct  witness 344 

manner  of  the  witnessing 347 

witness  of  our  own  spirit ;  nat- 
ure of  the  testimony ;  illustra- 
tions   348 

process  of  the  witnessing ;  assur- 
ance subjectively  one 350 

variable  in  degree 351 

thoroughly  valid 352 

Athanasius,  need  of  atonement. . .  ii,  165 
Atheism,  skeptical  or  dogmatic. . .  i,  110 
concerning  the  dogmatic ;  nega- 
tions of Ill 

no  reply  to  theistic  proofs ;  no 

account  of  the  cosmos 112 

no  proof  of  itself 113 

Atonement,  definition  of ii,    68 

reality  of:  witnessing  facts 70 

witnessing  terms 79 

necessity   of:    in   the   sense  of 

Scripture 89 

in  moral  government 90 

theories  of;  earlier  views 106 

scientific  treatment ;    doctrine  of 

Anselm 107 

many  theories ;  scientific  enu- 
meration   109 

ground  for  only  two 112 

leading  theories 123 

sufficiency  of 195 

objections  to 203 


626 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

a  salvation  for  man  only ;  broader 

relations  of ii,  208 

a  practical  lesson  for  all  intelli- 
gences          209 

significance  of   the    lordship  of 

Christ 211 

moral  grandeur  of  the  atone- 
ment          214 

extent  of,  determined  by  the  di- 
vine pleasure 219 

pleasure  of  the  Father 222 

pleasure  of  the  Son ;  testimony  of 

the  Scriptures 225 

fallacies  in  defense  of  limitation.        232 

Attributes,  of  God  ;  peculiarities  of 

classification i,  174 

artificial  classifications 1*75 

personality  the  true   ground  of 

classification 177 

the  attributes  given  in  person- 
ality          178 

Augustine,  conservation  a  creation    i,  316 

B 

Baird,  a  generic  human  nature. ...  i,  477 

Baptism,  meaning  of  the  rite ii,  395 

relation  to  justification  ;  the  sign 
of  regeneration;  mode  of  ad- 
ministration    896 

original  words ;  classical  use  of ; 

biblical  use 397 

ceremonial  purifications 398 

baptism  of  the  Spirit 399 

the  baptisms  of  John 400 

baptism  of  our  Lord;  baptisms  on 

the  day  of  Pentecost 402 

baptism   of    tlie   Ethiopian ;    of 

Saul  of  Tarsus 403 

other  instances  ;  subjects  of  bap- 
tism :  the  truly  regenerate 404 

infants    proper     subjects:     the 

Abrahamlc  covenant 405 

blessings   of;  rights  of   infants 

to 406 

one  church  in  two  forms  ;  infants 

a  right  to  baptism 407 

relation  of  to  the  Church 408 

ground  of   rights ;   instances  of 

household  baptism 409 

historical  view  of  infant  baptism  410 
Baur,  Grotian  theory  of  atonement  ii,  161 

Baxter,  doctrine  of  atonement.  ...  ii,  217 

Bellarmin,  original  righteousness.,  i,  419 
Benefits,  immediate,  of  atonement: 

the  present  life ii,  241 

gracious  help  for  all 242 

capacity  for  moral  probation. . . .  246 

infant  salvation 247 

conditional  benefits 248 

salvation  conditional 249 

Scripture  testimony 250 


great  facts  of  the  salvation  sev- 
erally conditional ii,  252 

Bengel,  originative  creation i,  286 

Bennett,  power  of  Christian  faith,  ii,  429 

Bentley,  scope  of  atonement i,  393 

Bernard,  possible  modes  of  salva- 
tion   ii,  165 

Biackstone,  end  of  punishment. . .  ii,  174 

Blasphemy,  against  the  Holy  Ghost  ii,  437 
Bledsoe,    merit    and    demerit   only 

from  personal  conduct i,  412 

change  in  our  Seventh  Article. .  525 

nature  of  the  atonement ii,  168 

on  native  demerit 522 

Blessedness,    future,    heaven    the 

place  of  ;  sense  of  place ii,  472 

location  of  heaven 473 

beauty  of  the  place ;  elements  of 

blessedness 474 

Bloomfield,  prescience  and   prede- 
termination. . .    ii,  262 

Boston,  method  of  theology i,    51 

Bowne,  tlieism  underlies  reason. . .  i,    71 

rational  order  of  nature 87 

divine  sensibility 198 

Brentz,  Christological  school  of . . .  ii,  56 
Brewster,  Sir  David,  relations  of  the 

atonement i,  393 

Brown,  cause  and  effect i,     78 

Bruce,  view  of  Nestorianism ii,    51 

types  of  kenoticism 59 

divine  wisdom  in  redemption...  213 

Buchanan,  antitheistic  skepticism,  i,  122 

Buff  on,  doctrine  of  species i,  371 

Bull,  the  Son  manifest  as  Jehovah  i,  246 

creative  work  of  Christ 252 

Bunsen,  origin  of  Indian  tribes. . .  i,  383 

Burge,  theory  of  atonement ii,  160 

Bush,  theory  of  the  resurrection . .  ii,  452 

Bushnell,  theory  of  atonement. . .  ii,  115 

Butler,  supremacy  of  conscience. .  i,  107 

uniformity  of  divine  agency. . . .  324 

meaning  of  natural 332 

C 
Caird,  value  of  doctrine i,    49 

religious  idea  in  idolatry 58 

personality  the  perfection  of  God       151 
Calderwood,  true  idea  of  the  infinite    i,  146 

Calixtus,  method  of  theology i,    51 

Calvin,  favors  the  term  reprobation  ii,  264 
Camero,  anew  theory  of  atonement  ii,  217 
Campbell,  atonement  by  vicarious 

repentance ii,  US 

Candlish,  limited  atonement ii,  229 

Christ,  substitute  of  the  elect. ..        235 

Cappellus,  disciple  of  Camero ii,  217 

Cause,  intuitive  idea  of i,    76 

Cave,  theories  of  atonement ii,  109 

Celsus,  applauds  Zeno ii,  456 

Chalmers,  systemization  of  theology    i,    51 


INDEX. 


527 


PAfiE 

pheiiomeua  of  conscience i,  H'8 

Genesis  and  geology oOO 

depravity  of  human  nature.  ...  445 
responsibility  for  native  disposi- 
tions   ii,  282 

witness  of  the  Spirit 344 

Chemnitz,  Christological  sciiool  of.  ii,    56 

(.'lievreul,  theory  of  species i,  371 

Choice,  mental  facts  of ii,  283 

usual  analysis  of  the  facts  ;  vital 

part  omitted 284 

a  complete  analysis 286 

the  facts  conclusive  of  freedom.  287 

freedom  of  choice 288 

a  true  freedom 306 

Choosing  as  we  please,  as  a  formula 

of  freedom ;  aim  of  the  doctrine,  ii,  280 
a  nullity  for  freedom  ;  consistent 

with  determining  inclination...  281 
indifferent   whence  or  what  the 

inclination 282 

Christ,    theautluopic ;    his  natures 

ever  dual ii,     23 

conununiou  of  attributes  in  his 
personality ;  no  communication 
of  attributes ;  truth  of  a  thean- 

thropic  personality 24 

the  meaning  of  the  creeds;  the 

result  of  the  incarnation 25 

a  necessity  to  atonement 26 

the  interpretation  of  Christo- 
logical facts 27 

Christlieb,  the  Trinity i,  269 

Christology,  scope  of;  the  person 

of  Christ ii,      3 

importance  of  a  true  doctrine. . .  4 

an  early  subject  of  study 5 

differences  of  doctrine;  the  Chal- 

cedonian  symbol 6 

no  better  construction  of  the  doc- 
trine ;  the  formula  given 7 

contents  of 8 

Constantinopolitan  additions;  the 

additions  really  Nestorian 9 

elements  of  the  doctrine :  a  di- 
vine nature;  a  human  nature. .,  10 

personal  oneness 12 

in  two  natures 13 

errors  in  Christology 45 

Chronology,  biblical i,  359 

Chrysostom,  God  incomprehensible  i,  153 

Chubb,  on  the  prodigal  sou ii,  104 

Church,  the,  primary  idea  of ;  the 

Christian  idea ii,  385 

various  applications  of  the  term  ; 

denominational  Churches 386 

specific  idea  ;  origin  of  the  Church       387 

organizing  forces 388 

laity  and  ministry 415 

ecclesiastical  polity 416 

Church  membership,  duty  of ii,  388 


Clarke,  Adam,  on  Adam  naming  the 

animals i,  406 

the  serpent  in  the  temptation. . .  429 

Clarke,  James  Freeman,  great  re- 
ligions   i,    58 

Clarke,  Samuel,  the  ontological  ar- 
gument    i,    75 

Clement,  man  in  the  image  and  like- 
ness of  God i,  406 

Cocceius,  method  of  theology i,    51 

Cocker,  God  as  unconditioned i,  148 

providential  conservation 315 

divine  agency  in  providence. . . .  332 

Comte,  positivism i,  118 

Confessions,  doctrinal  value  of  ;  not 

a  source  of  theology i,    12 

Conscience,  reality  of ;  supreme  a\i- 

thority  of i,  107 

the  pacification  of ii,  158 

Consciousness,  the  Christian i,    18 

the  higher  view  of 19 

variations  of  ;  law  of  variations.  20 

not  a  source  of  theology 21 

Cook,  the  atonement ii,  181 

Cosmogony,  the  Mosaic i,  298 

literal  sense  of  narrative 299 

theories  of  consistency  with  sci- 
ence   300 

theory  of    two  creations ;    of  a 

modern,  local  creation 301 

difficulties  of  the  theory 302 

Mosaic  days  of  creation 303 

six  days  and  the  Sabbath 304 

consistency  of  Genesis  and  geol- 
ogy   305 

Cosmological  argument,  the  princi- 
ple of  causation i,    76 

dependence  of  the  cosmos 80 

God  the  only  sufficient  cause  of.  81 

Cousin,  movement   of  philosophic 

thought i,    16 

mysticism 17 

only  ground  of  punishment ii,  173 

Crawford,  theories  of  atonement. .  ii,  109 

limited  atonement 235 

Creation,  the  work  of i,  276 

question  of,  threefold 277 

respecting  creation  of  matter . . .  278 

on  a  priori  ground 279 

on  cosmological  ground 281 

on  teleological  ground ;  on  scien- 
tific ground 282 

biblical  words  of  creation 283 

more  direct  Scripture  proofs...  285 

several  spheres  of  creation 286 

the  physical  cosmos;  living  orders  287 

man,  a  distinct  order 288 

angels,  the  creation  of 289 

mystery  of  creation;  familiar  with 

the  formative 291 

mystery  of  the  originative 292 


628 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

the  principle,  ex  nihilo  nihil  Jit  ; 

no  absolute  quantity  of  being. . .  i,  293 

divine  agency  in  creation  personal 

and  free 295 

Creationism,    respecting  the  origin 

of  human  souls i,  490 

Cremer,  words  of  creation i,  283 

Criticism,   the    higher,    right    and 

wrong  of i,    42 

Cunningham,  depravity  a  penal  in- 
fliction   i,  466 

federal  headship  of  Adam 494 

Curry,    substitution   and   justifica- 
tion    ii,  1 35 

Cuvier,  definition  of  species i,  371 

Cyprian,  God  incomprehensible...  i,  153 

Cyril,  opponent  of  Nestorianism. . .  ii,    51 

D 

Dana,  no  link  between  ape  and  man  i,  132 

geology  and  Genesis 307 

Daunhauer,  method  of  theology. . .  i,    51 

Darwin,  adaptations  in  nature. ...  i,    91 

Dawson,  Genesis  and  geology i,  307 

antiquity  of  man 363 

Day,  motive  moves  the  will ii,  277 

Decrees,  of  God ii,  254 

eternal ;    absolute ;     efficacious ; 

alleged  proofs  of 255 

decrees  efficacious  and    permis- 
sive    256 

as     related     to     freedom ;     the 

ground  of  foreknowledge 257 

perplexing     questions ;      sinful 

deeds  foreknown 258 

decrees  without  reason 265 

illustrative  statement 266 

Deism,  the  English i,    43 

distinction  from  theism 57 

Delitzsch,  creation  of  matter i,  284 

narrative  of  the  creation 300 

Demoniacs,  veritable  instances. ...  ii,  499 

number  and  character  of 500 

no  proof  of  present  cases 501 

Depravity,  of  human  nature ;  mani- 
fest in  its  activities i,  442 

not  distinctively  in  the  will;  in 

the  sensuous  and  moral  nature  443 

of  evil  tendency 445 

a  native  state;  proofs  of  from 

Scripture 446 

from  actual  sin 451 

from  sundry  facts 457 

Adamic  origin  of 462 

ground  of 465 

realistic  and  representative  views  466 

view  of  genetic  transmission. . . .  467 

speculative  theories 468 

law  of  production  in  kind 505 

the  law  of  native  depravity 506 

the  sense  of  Scripture 507 


PAGE 

demerit  of  depravity,  theory  of.  i,  510 

demerit  of  a  mere  nature 516 

an  indefinable  sin 518 

depravity  without  demerit 521 

Des  Cartes,  the  ontological  argu- 
ment    i,    74 

Devil,  the,  the  evil  one ii,  497 

apostasy  of 498 

the  devil  and  his  angels 502 

evil  work  of 503 

their  final  overthrow 504 

Dick,  no  guilt  in  the  redeemed. ...  ii,  151 

Diman,  idea  of  a  first  cause i,    82 

reality  of  moral  law 108 

Dorner,  doctrine  of  infallibility.  . .  i,    16 
development    of    the    Lutheran 

Christology ii,    56 

existence  of  evil  spirits 502 

Drew,  germ  theory  of  the  resurrec- 
tion    ii,  452 

Drummond,  biogenesis ii,  328 

Dwight,  probation  implies  the  pos- 
sibility of  falling i,  434 

only  one  source  of  depravity. . . .  462 

E 

Ebionism,  several  sects  of;  Chris- 
tology of ii,    45 

Ebrard,  type  of  Christology ii,    59 

Edwards,   conservation   as   contin- 
uous creation i,  316 

an  evil  tendency  in  man 453 

definition  of  freedom ii,  272 

motive  determines  the  will 277 

defense  of  native  demerit 522 

Edwards,  the  younger,  doctrine  of 

atonement ii,  160 

moral  necessity  consistent  with 

responsibility 282 

Eichhorn,  Mosaic  cosmogony i,  300 

Election,  doctrine  of ;  instances  of ; 

election  of  the  Jews ii,  260 

special  texts 261 

election  of  the  Gentiles 262 

no  absolute  election  to  salvation  263 

F 

Faith,  place  of  in  theology;  rational 

ground  of .  . . .    i,    37 

necessary  to  science 38 

common  element  of ;  distinctions 

of ii,  321 

as  intellectual ;  practical ;    fidu- 
ciary ;  nature  of  justifying  faith.  322 

the  personal  act  of  trust 323 

harmony  of  Paul  and  James. . . .  324 

Fall,  of   man ;    instrument  of   the 

temptation i,  429 

agency  of  the  devil ;  manner  of 

the  temptation 430 

mental  movement  of  Eve ;   the 


INDEX. 


529 


PAGE 

case  of  Adam ;  penalty  of  dis- 
obedience    i,  43 1 

conseciuence  to  tlie  race 432 

freedom  of  man  in  falling 433 

permission  of  the  fall 436 

Federal  hcadsliii),  of  Adam  ;  legal 
oneness  of  the  race  in  him ;  im- 
mediate imputation  of  his  sin  to 

the  race i,  493 

sense  of  the  imputation 494 

no  transfer  of  demerit;  no  ground 

of  guilt  in  representation 495 

instances  of  attainder ;   biblical 

instances  of  imputation 497 

proof  texts  considered 498 

no  such  headship  of  Adam 501 

Fichte,  definition  of  God i,    59 

Fisher,  the  idea  of  cause i,    76 

the  Spinozan  pantheism 114 

Fisk,  guilt  of  depravity  not  im- 
puted    i,  526 

Fletcher,  man  in  a  fallen  state. ...  i,  451 

gracious  help  for  all ii,  245 

Christian  perfection 375 

a  common  Adamic  sin ii,  506 

justification  of  all  in  Christ. . . .  513 

Flint,  no  atheistic  tribes i,    66 

pretensions  of  positivism 118 

Fonseca,     distinctions     of     divine 

knowledge i,  188 

Foster,  John,   atheistic  pretension  i,  113 

Foster,  R.  S.,  certainty  of  religious 

experience i,    35 

the  ontological  argument 76 

concerning  sin  in  believers ii,  359 

Freedom,  true  question  of ;  not  the 
freedom  of  things  ;  nor  of  exter- 
nal action ii,  271 

nor  of  the  will 272 

but  of  personal  agency 273 

importance  of  the  question :  in 

psychology  ;  in  ethics 274 

in  theology 275 

Fuller,  method  of  theology i,    51 

G 

Gabler,  Mosaic  cosmogony i,  300 

Gerhart,  source  of   the   Lutheran 

Christology ii,    55 

Gess,  type  of  kenoticism ii,    59 

Gilbert,  problem  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ing    ii,  205 

Gnosticism,    high    pretensions  of ; 

various  schools  of ii,    46 

at  work  in  apostolic  times ;  per- 
verting    principles     of ;     false 

Christology  of 47 

God,  definitions  of i,    59 

sources  of  the  idea  of 61 

an  intuition  of  the  moral  reason ; 

atheism  no  disproof  of 64 


PAOE 

no  atheistic  heathen  tribes i,    65 

a  necessary  idea 68 

God,  in  being;  attiibute  and  being  i,  159 

spirituality  of  being 161 

immutability  of  being ;  question 

of  infinity  of  being 164 

Government,  moral,  reality  of ;  req- 
uisites of ii,    90 

equity  of 462 

Governmental     theory,    of    atone- 
ment; substitutional  atonement,  ii,  155 
substitution   in  suH'ering,  not  in 
punishment ;  the  value  the  same ; 

the  sacrifice  the  same 156 

the  divine  love  the  same 157 

the  Grotian  theory 159 

the  true  Arminian  theory 165 

answers  to  the  real  necessity  for 

atonement 176 

grounded  in  the  deepest  neces- 
sity    177 

gives  the  true  sense  of  satisfac- 
tion; interprets  the  terms  of  the 

divine  wrath 184 

of  the  divine  righteousness ;  of 

atonement 186 

of  atoning  suffering 187 

is  true  to  Scripture  facts :  guilt 

of  redeemed  sinners 190 

forgiveness  of  sin  in  justification; 

grace  of  forgiveness 192 

universality  of  atonement 193 

Gracious  help  for  all ii,  242 

Gray,  doctrine  of  species i,  371 

variations  of  species 374 

Green,  biblical  chronology i,  360 

Griffin,  theory  of  atonement ii,  160 

Grotius,  eminent  in  scholarship. .  ii,  160 

doctrine  of  atonement 161 

Grove,  structure  of  matter  unknown  i,  281 
Guyot,   harmony   of   Genesis   and 

geology i,  307 

H 

Hades,  the  underworld ii,  430 

Hagenbach,  man  the  image  of  God  i,  406 

Hamilton,  principle  of  causation. .  i,    77 

doctrine  of  the  absolute 139 

the  infinite  unknowable 151 

highest  religious  consecration. . .  152 

no  originative  creation 292 

Harris,  science  broader  than  em- 
piricism    i,    23 

theism  underlies  reason 71 

Hase,  method  of  theology i,    51 

Heaven,  place   of   future   blessed- 
ness ;  the  sense  of  place ii,  472 

location  of  heaven 473 

beauty  of  the  place ;  elements  of 

blessedness 474 

completeness  of  blessedness. ...  475 


530 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

Hegel,  definition  of  God i,    59 

the  infinite  must  include  evil. . .  140 

Herbert,  Lord,  English  deism i,    43 

Herbert,  T.  M.,  striking  adaptations  i,    91 
Herschel,  atoms  manufactured  ar- 
ticles   i,  281 

Hilgard,  antiquity  of  man i,  365 

Hill,  terms  of  redemption ii,    86 

middle  theory  of  atonement. ...  121 

atonement  sufficient  for  all 220 

Hitchcock,  C.  H.,  harmony  of  Gene- 
sis and  geology i,  306 

Hodge,  A.  A.,  penal  satisfaction  a 

necessity  of  justice ii,  144 

atonement  sufficient  for  all 220 

Hodge,  Charles,  immediate  imputa- 
tion of  sin i,  494 

moral  character  untransferable.  495 

federal  headship  of  Adam 601 

justice  must  punish  sin ii,  148 

penal  obligation  transferable. . .  145 

pecuniary  and  penal  satisfaction  150 

result  the  same  in  both 151 

view  of  the  rectoral  theory 1Y4 

only  the  elect  redeemed 235 

the  divine  decrees 255 

ministries  of  angels 496 

Holden,    Adam    naming    the    ani- 
mals    i,  404 

Holiness,   of    God ;     holiness    and 

righteousness i,  199 

moral  feeling  in 200 

necessary  to  holy  action 201 

holiness  in  Adam 409 

not  strictly  ethical 410 

a  holiness  of  his  nature 412 

proofs  of 414 

elements  of 418 

Holyoake,  secularism i,  122 

Hooker,  Scripture  and  theology . . .  i,      1 

orderly  course  of  nature 324 

the  divine  incarnation ii,    21 

three  views  of  the  Supper 411 

Hopkins,  moral  intuitions i,    63 

Horsley,   narrative  of  the  creation  i,  395 

Humboldt,  common  origin  of  races  i,  383 

Hume,  the  idea  of  cause i,    77 

Hurst,  rationalism i,    45 

Huxley,  no  proof  of  abiogenesis. . .  i,  129 

fossil  man 132 

antiquity  of  man 361 

I 

Idolatry,  the  origin  of i,    58 

Immortality,   of    mind,    proof    of, 

from  spirituality ii,  426 

divine  purpose  of 427 

the  view  of  Scripture 429 

Immutability,  of  God i,  221 

Imputation,  immediate,  of  sin. ...  i,  493 

of  faith  for  righteousness ii,  319 


PAGE 

Inability,  moral ii,  266 

Incarnation,  the  divine ii,     14 

of  the  personal  Son  ;  relation  of 

to  the  person  of  Christ ii,    17 

Infants,  relation  of  to  the  Church ; 

respecting  infant  regeneration . .  ii,  408 

a  right  to  baptism;  ground  of. .  409 

Inspiration,  of  the  Scriptures ;  dis- 
tinction of  inspiration  and  reve- 
lation ;    of  inspiration  and   the 

Scriptures ii,  479 

agency  of  the  Spirit  in  inspiration  480 

a  threefold  operation 481 

theories  of  inspiration 482 

dynamical  theory,  sense  of ;  suffi- 
cient for  a  revelation 486 

inspiration  a  fact  of  Scripture ; 
not  a  credential  of  the  sacred 

writers 487 

value  of  inspiration 488 

Instinct,   nature   of i,     95 

Intermediate  state,  doctrine  of ; 
question     of     an     intermediate 

place ;  sheol  and  hades ii,  430 

a  higher  place  for  the  good ;  vi^w 

of  the  Church 431 

a  state  of  conscious  existence; 

the  sense  of  Scripture 432 

objections  considered 434 

not     probationary :     silence    of 

Scripture ;  clear  sense  of 435 

respecting  the  heathen 436 

not  a  purgatorial  state 438 

Iremeus,  man  in  the  image  and  like- 
ness of  God i,  406 

Irresistibility,    of    saving     grace; 

serious    perplexities ii,  267 

respecting    the    reprobate;   the 

pleasure  of  God  in  calling  men. .  268 

Issues,  doctrinal,  between  Calvin- 
ism and  Arminianism ii,  254 

J 

Janet,  teleology  in  nature i,    90 

deviations  in  organic  nature. ...  93 

useless  and  rudimentary  organs .  94 

finality  in  nature 103 

ground  of  order  in  nature 323 

Jenkyn,  the  commercial  atonement  ii,  200 

Jennings,  all  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  ii,  606 
Josephus,    Jewish     belief   in   the 

resurrection ii,  431 

defense  of  the  doctrine  against 

the  Greeks 451 

Jouffroy,  pantheism i,  116 

Judgment,  the  ;  future ii,  458 

after  the  resurrection  ;  general.  .  459 

objections  considered 460 

manner  of 461 

Jussieu,  view  of  species i,  371 

Justice,  of  God i,  201 


INDEX. 


531 


PAOK 

the  office  of i,  202 

distinctions  of  justice :  commuta- 
tive; distributive  ;  public ii,  130 

public  justice,  as  related  to  atone- 
ment    169 

divine  justice  in  moral  govern- 
ment    170 

only  ground  of  its  penalties. ...  171 

end  of  penalties 172 

remissibility  of  penalties 175 

place  for  atonement ;  its  nature 

determined 176 

Justification,   importance  of  a  true 

doctrine ii,  308 

viewed  as  forensic 309 

vital  fact  of  forgiveness 310 

use  of  forensic  terms 311 

a  change  of  legal  status 312 

ground  of  justification:  in  Socin- 

ianisni ;  in  Romanism 313 

in  Calvinism 314 

in  Arminianism 317 

condition  of  justification 318 

K 

Kant,  definition  of  God i,    60 

the  ontological  argument 75 

universality  of  conscience 108 

Keil,  matter  a  creation i,  284 

narrative  of  the  creation 300 

Kenotic  Christology,  the  doctrine. .  ii,    59 

no  ground  in  Scripture 60 

aim  of  kenoticism 61 

implications  of  the  doctrine. ...  62 

Kitto,  words  of  creation i,  283 

Klaproth,  affinity  of  languages.  ...  i,  382 

Knapp,  element  of  time  in  tradi- 
tion   i,     13 

imputation  of  Adam's  sin  on  hy- 
pothetic ground 471 

Krauth,    development  of   the   Lu- 
theran Christology ii,    55 

Krug,  definition  of  God i,    60 

L 

Laity,  priesthood  of ii,  415 

Language,  only  one  original i,  366 

time  for  many 367 

Legge,  ancient  Chinese  religion. . .  i,    68 

Leo  X.,  respecting  Huss  and  Jerome  ii,  456 

Lewis,  narrative  of  creation i,  299 

Ley  decker,  method  of  theology ... .  i,    51 

Liddon,  pantheism i,  117 

generation  of  the  Son 237 

Life,  reality  of;  mystery  of i,  325 

Lightfoot,  Christ  in  the  form  of  God  ii,    15 

Linnaeus,  definition  of  species. ...  i,  371 

Locke,  a  light  of  nature i,      8 

Lotze,  on  definition  of  God i,    59 

Love,  of  God,  necessary  to  the  idea 

of  God i,  204 


ethical  goodness  only  with  love  ; 

evidences  of  divine  love 1,  205 

Lowrcv,  eradication  of  evil  tenden- 
cies."   ii,  364 

holiness  as  the  capacity 377 

Lubbock,  atheistic  tribes i,    66 

anticiuity  of  man 361 

Lucian,  power  of  Christian  faith. .  ii,  429 

Lucretius,  from  nothing,  nothing. .  i,  292 

Luther,  Christology  of ii,    56 

the  substitution  of  Christ 149 

Lutheran  Christology,  relation  of  to 

consubstantiation ii,    55 

doctrinal  differences 56 

confessional  statements 57 

refutation  of   the  doctrine ;   as- 
sumed impossibilities 58 

Lyell,  antiquity  of  man i,  361 

M 

Macaulay,  concerning  a  providence 
in  the  destruction  of  the  Ar- 
mada    i,  346 

Macdonald,  consistency  of  Genesis 

and  geology i,  306 

Macknight,  reconciliation ii,    82 

Magee,  origination  of  a  language . .  i,  405 

sins  of  ignorance ii,    80 

Man,  time  of  his  origin i,  358 

biblical  chronology 359 

claim  of  a  higher  antiquity 361 

alleged  proofs  :  historical 362 

archaeological ;  geological 363 

lingual 365 

racial 368 

the  unity  of  man 370 

racial  distinctions 373 

no  disproof  of  unity 375 

proofs  of  unity 377 

physiological ;  psychological. . . .  378 

absence  of  hybridity 379 

comparative  philology 382 

the  sense  of  Scripture 383 

the  question  in  theology 389 

primitive  man  :  Mosaic  narrative 

of;  literal  sense  of 394 

creation  of  man 397 

mind  distinctive  of  man 398 

physiological  constitution ;  intel- 
lectual grade 403 

no  supernatural  insight 405 

in  the  divine  likeness 406 

facts  of  the  likeness 407 

Mansel,  doctrine  of  the  absolute.. .  i,  140 

sources  of  Gnosticism ii,    46 

Martensen,  Romish  doctrine  of  tra- 
dition   i,     14 

method  of  theology 51 

moral  law  over  personal  agency .  328 

Martineau,  true  idea  of  the  in- 
finite    i,  145 


532 


INDEX. 


Matter,  as  we  know  it,  inadequate 
to  evolution ;  demand  for  a  new 

definition i,  100 

mental  powers  not  from  matter.  101 

nor  the  moral  powers 108 

materialism  unprovable ii,  423 

strait   of    materialism ;    no    ac- 
count of  mental  facts 424 

Maxcy,  theory  of  atonement ii,  160 

Maxwell,  character  of  the  molecule  i,  281 

McCabe,  foreknowledge  of  God. .  .  i,  181 

dilKcult  subject  of  holiness ii,  359 

meaning  of  holiness 376 

McCausland,  pre-adamites i,  385 

McCosh,  idea  of  God  as  infinite. . .  i,  148 

view  of  providence 330 

Means,  of  grace  :  Christian  fellow- 
ship ;    churchly  watchcare;   the 

word  of  God ii,  389 

prayer 390 

the  sacraments 392 

Melanchthon,   doctrine  of  original 

sin  cardinal  in  theology i,  354 

nature  of  original  sin 445 

Merrill,  perfection  and  maturity ...  ii,  375 

Mill,  mysticism i,    16 

cause  of  the  cosmos 82 

evil  in  relation  to  theism 205 

Miller,  man  the  image  of  God. ...  i,  197 

Moses  and  geology 306 

Milman,  evil  effects  of  the  doctrine 

of  native  demerit i,  532 

Mind,  a  spiritual  essence i,    98 

distinctive  powers  of 99 

mental  facts  not  from  matter. . .  ii,  424 
truth    of    spirituality ;    certainty 
of  mental   facts ;    continuity  of 

self-consciousness 425 

no  ground  in  materialism ;  view 

of  Scripture 426 

Ministry,  a  distinct  class ;  the  di- 
vine call ;  a  reasonable  idea. ...  ii,  415 
fact  of  the  call 416 

Miracles,  apologetic  value  of i,    32 

no       antecedent       presumption 

against ;   definition  of 33 

Mivart,  no  ape  family  specially  an- 
thropoid   i,  133 

Molina,  distinctions  of  divine  knowl- 
edge   i,  188 

Monergism,  in  regeneration ii,  330 

Moral  influence,  theory  of   atone- 
ment    ii,  125 

the  St)cinian  theory 126 

truth  of  moial  influence 127 

refutation  of  the  theory 129 

not  a  theory  of  atonement 132 

Morell,   movement   of   philosophic 

thouglit i,     16 

view  of  conservation  as  continu- 
ous creation 321 


PAGK 

Motives,  necessary  to  choice ii,  288 

power  over  motives 296 

sufficient    motives   for    required 

choices 302 

power  of  commanding  the  requi- 
site motives 304 

Mozley,  moral  intuitions i,    63 

idea  of  causation 78 

Miiller,  Julius,  malformations i,     98 

original  sin 445 

Miiller,  Max,  no  atheistic  tribes ...  i,    67 
Aryan  religion ;  bud  of  the  Lord's 

prayer 68 

N 

Nazarius,  possibilities  of  salvation  ii,  165 

Necessity,  moral ii,  266 

theoretical   forms  of  necessity : 

fatalism ;  materialism 275 

pantheism ;  predestination ;  dom- 
ination of  motive 276 

Nestoriauism,  Christology  of ii,    51 

disproof  of 52 

Nestorins ii,    51 

Newcomb,  all  science  empirical.. .  i,    23 

Nitzsch,  theological  method i,    53 

definition  of  God 60 

Nominalism,  truth  and  error  of . .  i,  479 

o 

Occasionalism,  doctrine  of 5,  319 

Omnipotence,  power  of  the  divine 

will i,  211 

agency  in  elective  volitions 212 

in  executive  volitions;  omnipo- 
tence of  will 213 

Omnipresence,  of  God i,  217 

erroneous  view  of;  not  a  ubiquity 

in  essence 218 

omnipresence  through  personal 

perfections;  in  personal  agency  219 

not  distinctively  an  attribute. . .  220 

Onmiscience,  an  immediate  and 
eternal  knowing;  prescient  of 
all  futurities ;  doctrine  of  di- 
vine nescience i,  180 

testimony  of  the  Scriptures. . . .  185 
prescience  in  the  prophecies  ...  187 
distinctions  of  divine  knowledge : 
scientia  Dei  necexsaria;  scientia 
Dei  libera;  scientia  Dei  media. .  188 
omniscience  and  the  divine  per- 
sonality   189 

Ontological  argument,  Anselm's. .  5,    73 

Des  Cartes's 74 

Clarke's 75 

Kant's 75 

estimates  of  its  value 76 

Origen,    man    in    the    image  and 

likeness  of  God ". i,  406 


INDEX. 


olU 


(M-i^iiial   sill,    fornuila  of;  lu)  pre- 
sciiplivi"  iiutliority  ;  in  need    of 

iuiulysis i,  44 1 

distinct  questions  of  doctrine .  .  442 
Anninian   ticatinent  of;  ii  com- 
mon Adamic  sin ii,  505 

canceled  by  fiee  };;aee 512 

Calvinistic  claim  of  concession  ; 

denial  of  the  claim 515 

real  point  of  the   issue 517 

Ai'minian    defense   not   on    the 

real  point 518 

dot'ti'inal  confusion  and  contra- 
diction the  result 520 

Owen,  all  sinned  in  Ailam i,  489 

sul)stitation  in  i<lentical  penalty,  ii,  136 

liuiitcd  atiinement 235 

P 

Paley,  rea.son  for  prayci- i,  342 

end  of  punishment ii,  174 

rantheism,   different  forms  of.  ...  i,  1 13 

Spino/.an    pantheism 114 

monistic  ground  of  ;  utterly  erro- 
neous    115 

little  better  than  atheism lit) 

of  atheistic  tendency 117 

Park,     New    England    theory    of 

atonement ii,  160 

Pascal,  (iod  incomprehensible.  ...  i,  153 

Peck,  assurance  of  sanctiKcation .  .  ii,  380 

I'elagianism,  errors  of i,  416 

I'elagius,  moral  good  and  evil.  ...  i,  417 

Penalty,  necessity  for ii,    '.t3 

necessity    for     atonement;     its 

nature  indicated 05 

Perseverance,  of  believers,  iibsolutt!.  ii,  268 

alleged   proofs 269 

Persius,  from  nothing,  nothing. . ,  i,  292 

Personality,  constituent  facts  of . . .  i,  166 

intellect ;  sensibility 167 

will 168 

divine  personality,  in  the  light  of 
the   human ;    same    complex    of 

powers  necessary 170 

(iod  only  in  per.sonality 173 

Peyrerius,  pre-adamites i,  385 

Pliilology,    comparative;    unity    of 

diverse  languages i,  382 

Placieus,    mediate    imputation    of 

Adam's  sin i,  469 

Plato,  order  in  nature i,    87 

IMiny,  a  resurrection  impossii)le. . .  ii,  455 
Polity,    ecclesiastical,    constitution 

of  tiie  Church ii,  4 1 5 

the  chief  question 416 

a  polity  necessary ;  none  divinely 

instituted 417 

the  work  of  the  Church 418 

valid  polity  and  ministry  of  the 

Methodist  Episcopal  (Jhunh. .  . .  419 
30 


Pope,  Alexander,  denial  of  a  piovi- 

dcnce i,  34  7 

Pope,  W.  U.,  scope  of  theology . .  .  i,      2 

the  divine  holiness 200 

universal  Adamic  sin ii,  509 

depravity  truly  sin 51 1 

the  condcnmation  removed 51  I 

no  groimd  of  reprobation 516 

native  i^uill r>2() 

Porter,  tiicism  underlies  reason.  .  .  i,     71 

Positivism,  of  Comle i,  11  7 

a  pretentious  system;  a  shallow 

philoso|ihy lis 

law  of  the  tiiree  states 119 

classification  of  the  sciences.  . .  .  120 
a     new      religion;      intrinsically 

atheistic ".  121 

Prayer,  the  privilege  of. .    i,  ;i;!9 

iXMluisitcs  of ii.  39o 

elements  of  its  power :   fervency 

of  mind  ;  help  of  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  3'.tl 

the  intercession  of  Christ 392 

Pi'c-adamites,  theories  of i,  385 

t'laim  of  Scri|)ture  ground 386 

the  question  in  ethnology 388 

in  Ciiristian  doctrine 389 

Predestination,  doctrine  of ii,  260 

Predicables,  divine,  eternity i,  214 

unity 2  111 

omnipresence 217 

immutability 221 

Pre-existence,  of  human  souls i,  490 

I'richard,  diversities  of  race i,  369 

imity  of  man 379 

Probation,  the  primitive i,  423 

the  testing  law 425 

suited  to  the  Adamic  statt' 426 

a  favorable  trial 427 

no  future  i)robation ii,  -i:;."! 

none  for  the  heathen 4  36 

Prophecy,  apologetic  value  of i,     32 

Propitiation, meaning  of;  divine  pio- 
pitiousness;  propitiation  through 

Christ ii,    83 

Providence,  the  divine,  a  universal 

agency i,  309 

in  the  physical  sphere .'114 

conservation  of  matter 315 

viewed  as  continuous  creation.  .  316 

question  of  physical  forces 318 

implications  of  their  denial 319 

ground  of  the  uniformities  of  nat- 
ure   322 

providence  in  animate  naliirc.  .  .  325 

the  view  of  Scripture 326 

in  the  realm  of  mind 327 

personal   agency   dependent,  yet 

free .".  .  323 

providence  in  accord  with 329 

providence  a  truth  of  theism  ;  of 

moral  government 336 


534 


INDEX. 


PAGK 

of  the  diviae  Fatherhood i,  337 

of  the  Scripture!? 338 

review  of  objections 341 

Punishment,  only  ground  of ii,  171 

only  for  rectoral  ends 172 

true  doctrine  of  173 

future      punishment:      rational 

proofs  of 462 

Scripture  proofs  of 465 

eternity  of 467 

no  rationale  of 468 

a  ((uestion   of  revelation ;  clear 

sense  of  Scripture 469 

the  Catholic  doctrine 470 

Purgatory,    doctrine    of ;    in    the 

hands  of  the  Church ;  groundless,  ii,  438 

Pythagoras,  the  essence  of  reality,  i,     87 

Q 

Quatrefages,  no  atheistic  tribes.  . .  i,    66 

distinctive  facts  of  species 370 

unity  of  man 374 

R 

Randies,  theory  of  providence. ...  i,  321 

Rationalism,  of  the  English  deism .  i,    43 

the  German  rationalism 45 

Ray,  characteristics  of  species. ...  i,  371 

Raymond,  nature  of  the  atonement  ii,  168 

Realism,  in  anthropology ;  a  generic 

human  nature i,  474 

the  generic  nature  and  individual 

men 47.5 

the  individuals   share  the  sin  of 
the  nature ;   maintenance  of  the 

doctrine 477 

refutation  of 479 

a  loner  form  of  realism 488 

Re.ison,  function  of,  in  religion  and 

theology i,    39 

Reconciliation,  meaning  of  ;  recon- 
ciled by  Christ ii,     81 

sense  of  the  reconciliation 82 

Redemption,  meaning  of ;  instances 

of ii,    84 

redemption  by  Christ 85 

a  real  atonement ;  not  in  a  com- 
mercial sense 86 

Regeneration,  nature  of ii,  327 

representative  terms 329 

true  principle  of  interpretation.  330 

other  forms  of  presentation. ...  331 

the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 333 

no  baptismal  regeneration 334 

the  truth  not    regenerative;  no 

self- regeneration 336 

sonship  through  regeneration..  337 

the  heritage  of  blessings 338 

Religion,  inseparable  from  human 
nature ;  religious  feelings  as  real 

as  the  facts  of  physics i,    27 


PAGE 

Renouf,  Egyptian  religion i,    67 

Repentance,  necessary  to  salvation,  ii,  100 
possible  only  through  redemptive 

gi'aoe 101 

not  the  ground  of  forgiveness.  .  102 

necessary  to  justifying  faith . . .  323 

Reprobation,  doctrine  of ii,  263 

pretention ;      election      implies 

reprobation  ;  contrary  to  justice.  264 
respecting  actual  sin ;  arbitrary 

election  and  reprobation 265 

illustrative  statement 266 

Resurrection,  the,  literal  sense  of ; 

false  assumptions  in  proof  of.  .  ii,  448 
explicit  words  of  Christ ;  chapter 

of  the  resurrection 450 

the  germ   theory  ;   the  Sweden- 

borgian  theory 452 

the  resurrection  body 453 

credibility  of   the  resurrection ; 

apparent    difficulties 454 

onenessof  the  resurrection  ....  455 
Revelation,  religious   truth  super- 

naturally  given i,    31 

necessary   supernatural   attesta- 
tion   32 

distinction  from  inspiration. ...  ii,  479 
Rogers,     mediate     imputation     of 

Adam's  sin i,  469 

Romang,  truth  of  evil  spirits ii,  602 

Rotlie,  method  of  theology i,    51 

Rouge,  P]gyptiau  religion i,     67 

s 

Sacraments,  sense  of  the  term.  ...  ii,  392 
confessional  statements;  symbol- 
ical character ;  sealing  office. . ..  393 
limitation  of  means ;  sacraments, 

as  means 394 

as  symbols  ;  as  seals 395 

Saisset,  determinations  of  being.  .  i,  150 

Sanctification  ;  idea  of  holiness ...  ii,  354 

ceremonial   sanctification 355 

deeper  moral  sense ;  entire  sanc- 
tification    356 

sanctification  of  the  nature. . . .  357 

second-blessing  view 368 

may  be  a  gradual  work 370 

the  life  in  holiness 371 

portraiture  of  the  life 372 

grades  in  graces  ;  law  of  perfec- 
tion in  graces 377 

assurance  of  sanctification 379 

a  common  privilege 382 

Satisfaction,  theory  of,  in  Calvin- 
istic  theology  ;  formation  of  the 

doctrine ii,  133 

place    in    the    "Federal    Theol- 
ogy;" complete  substitution...  134 
concerning  penal  substitution.  .  135 
theories  of  the  substitution. ...  136 


INDEX. 


53.J 


PAGE 

ail  absolute  substitution ii,  137 

punitive  justice  and  satisfaction  i;W 
penal  satisfaction  a  necessity  of 

justice 141 

impossible  by  substitution 142 

tiie  satisfaction  necessary 143 

the  substitution  maintained.  .  .  .  144 

no  answer  to  the  necessity 145 

the   tiieory  self-destructive ;    ob- 
jections to  the  theory  :  the  puu- 

ishnieut  of  Christ 148 

redeemed  sinners    without  guilt  149 

a  limited  atonement 163 

Schaff,  concerning  a  limited  atone- 
ment   ii,  153 

Schemes    of    future     blessedness 

without  atonement ii,    97 

Schlegel,  common  origin  of  races.  .  i,  383 
Sohleiermacher,  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness   i,    19 

Science,  necessary  certitude i,    22 

empirical,  limitations  of 23 

possible  only  as  knowledge  may 

transcend  experience 24 

not  possible  without  faith 38 

Secularism,  a  skeptical  atheism. .  .  i,  122 
a   practical  application   of  posi- 
tivism ;  really  atheistic   123 

a  propaganda  ;  only  evil    for  the 

people    124 

Semi-pelagianism,  and  trichotomy,  i,  400 

Sensibility,  the  divine;  truth  of. . .  i,  194 

distinctions  of 195 

rational  sensibility;  aesthetic...  196 

moral 198 

distinctions  of  the  moral :  holi- 
ness    199 

justice 201 

love 204 

mercy 209 

truth 210 

Shedd,  depravity  a  penal  infliction,  i,  466 

a  generic  human  nature 474 

individuations  of  the  nature. . . .  483 
every  man  a  particeps  criminis 

with  Adam 486 

justice  must  punish  sin ii,  144 

the  redeemed  without  guilt 191 

Sheol,  the  underworld ii,  430 

Sherlock,  witness  of  the  Spirit. ...  ii,  344 
Shroeder  van  der  Kolk,  concerning 

manlike  apes j,  133 

Sin,  definitions  of i,  627 

the  true  definition 528 

in  the  regenerate ;  confessional 

statements ii,  366 

view  of  Wesley 367 

evil  tendency  of  the  traditional 

doctrine 368 

Sinning,  the,  of  holy  beings i,  434 

Smalley,  theory  of  atonement ii,  160 


i'a(;k 
Smeaton,  the  substitution  of  Christ  ii,  134 
Smith,  Henry  B.,  motives  not  effi- 
cient cause  of  choice ii,  279 

Smith,  John  Pye,  definition  of  the 

atonement ii,  1 S4 

Socinian  Christology ii,    54 

false  to  the  Sciiptures 55 

Socinus,  Faustus,  relation  of  to  the 

Socinian  system ii,    54 

Socinus,  Ld'lius,  Socinianism ii,    54 

Sonship,  of  the  Son i,  232 

lower  sense  of 233 

a     divine     Sonship ;     Sciiptuie 

proofs  of 235 

generation  of  the  Son 237 

guarded  use  of  the  term 238 

Consubstantiality   with    the    Fa- 
ther ;  subordiiuition  of 239 

Son  of  (Jod,  tlie,  divinity  of i,  239 

proofs  of  :  divine  titles 240 

divine  attributes 246 

divine  works 250 

divine  worshipf ulness 254 

Sophocles,  sin  as  siu-olfering ii,  188 

Soteriology,   atonement   and  salva- 
tion ;  their  relation  to  Christ.  ...  ii.     66 

South,  greatness  of  Adam i,  403 

Southall,  recent  origin  of  man.  ...  i,  366 

rapiil  foririatioii  of  languages.  . .  367 
Sovereignty  of  (iod,  the,  no  reason 
for    a    limited    atonement ;    an 
atonement    itself    the    disproof 

of  an  absolute  sovereignty ii,  222 

Species,  definitive  facts  of i,  S7ii 

Spencer,  religion  an  eternal  fact. .  i,    27 

the  absolute  impersonal 137 

the  first  cause 141 

Spinoza,  definition  of  (iod i,    60 

pantheism  of 1 14 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  personality  of. . . .  i,  257 
personal  agency  of ;  personal  as- 
sociations   258 

personal  facts 259 

procession  of  the  Spirit 260 

divinity  of  ;  divine  attributes. . .  262 

divine  works 263 

supreme  worshipf  ulness 265 

Spirits,  the,  in  prison ii,  437 

Stier,  personality  of  the  Son i,  248 

Strong,    A.    H.,    systemization    of 

theology i,    51 

variations  of  race 375 

Strong,  James,  Mosaic  cosmogony .  i,  299 

Stuart,  originative  creation i,  286 

Substitution, useof  the  term;  Script- 
ure ground  of ii,    87 

Summers,  all  one  with  Adam ii,  512 

a  free  justification  in  Christ. . . .  514 
the  life-giving  second  Adam.  ...  516 
Supper,  the,  sacrament  of;  institu- 
tion of  ;  nature  of ii,  4 11 


536 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

the  Lutheran  doctrine ;  no  real 

presence  ;  only  literal  sense.  ...  ii,  412 
Papistical  doctrine ;  assumed  real 

presence 418 

no  transubstantiatiou ;  true  nat- 
ure   of   the    supper ;    factitious 

sacraments 414 

Swedenborgianism,  theory   of   the 

resurrection ii,  452 

Symington,  no  guilt  in  the  redeemed  ii,  151 

secret  and  preceptive  divine  will  239 

Sympathy,  of  Christ,  through  a  law 

of  common  suffering ii,    30 

appropriated  in  the  incarnation.  31 

a  thorough  appropriation 32 

manifest  in  his  life 33 

sufferings  like  our  own 34 

deeper  than  a  human  conscious- 
ness ;  else,  only  a  human  sym- 
pathy   36 

limitations  of  the  human 37 

suffering  in  a  theanthropic  con- 
sciousness   38 

divine  consciousnessof  the  human  39 

new  facts  of  consciousness 40 

sacrifice  of  the  Father;  of  the 

Son , 41 

real  ground  of  sympathy 42 

true  personality  of  Christ 43 

Synergism,  in  regeneration ii,  336 

T 

Taylor,    Isaac,    the     headship    of 

Christ ii,  215 

Taylor,  John,  nature  of  atonement,  ii,  120 

Taylor,  N.  W.,  view  of  the  Trinity .  i,  230 
Teleological    argument ;     teleology 

manifest  in  human  agency i,    86 

equally  in  the  orderly  constitu- 
tion of  nature 87 

in  the  adaptation  of  nature 89 

higher  adaptations  than  in  human 

artifices 91 

objections    considered :    organic 

malformations 92 

useless  and  rudimentary  organs.  93 

the  working  of  instinct 95 

Teleology,  meaning  of i,    86 

Terry,  the  Mosaic  cosmogony i,  298 

Tertullian,  God  incomprehensible. .  i,  153 

Theism,  meaning  of i,    51 

Theodicy,  endeavors  toward  its  at- 
tainment    i,  205 

unattainable  simply  in  the  light 

of  reason 206 

Theodore,  author  of  Nestorianism .  ii,    51 
Theodoret,  propagator  of  Nestorian- 

ism ii,    51 

Theology,    definitions   of ;    distinc- 
tions of,  as  natural i,      2 

exegetical ;  biblical ;  dogmatic. .  .  3 


PAGE 

historical ;  practical ;  systematic  i,       4 

definitive  facts  of  the  systematic  5 
relation   of   to   other   forms    of 

theology 6 

scientific  basis  of 22 

grounds  of  the  necessary  certitude  26 

method  of  systemization 51 

Theology,  sources  of i,      7 

the  light  of  nature 8 

revelation  the  source 11 

mistaken  sources :  confessions..  12 

tradition 13 

mysticism 16 

the  Christian  consciousness 18 

Thomasius,  method  of  theology...  i,    51 

type  of  kenoticism Ii,    5H 

Tiele,  no  atheistic  tribes i,    67 

Tournefort,  characteristics  of  spe- 
cies   i,  371 

Tradition,  Romish  doctrine  of  ;  not 

a  source  of  theology i,     13 

Traducianism,  respecting  the  origin 

of  souls i,  490 

Trendelenberg,  finality i,    91 

Trichotomy,  the  doctrine  of i,  398 

in  Apollinarianism 399 

in  semiPelagianism 400 

trichotomic  texts ;  original  words  401 

no  light  on  regeneration ii,  328 

Trinity,  the  basal  truth  of  the  doc- 
trine    i,  223 

personal  distinctions  of  Father  ; 

Son  ;  and  Holy  Spirit 224 

union   of    the    three   in   divine 
unity ;  difficulties  of  the  doctrine.  225 
incipiency  of  the  doctrine ;  treat- 
ment in  the  creeds 226 

the  Apostles' ;  the  Nicene 227 

the  Athanasian 228 

formulations  of  the  doctrine,  not 

a   philosophy 229 

the  doctrine 230 

resources  of  Christian   thought 

and  faith 231 

proofs  of  the  Trinity 267 

mystery  of  the  Trinity ;   above 

our  reason  ;  without  analogies. . .  269 
mystery  no  valid  objection ;  con- 
sistency of  the  constituent  facts  ; 

a  vital  truth  of  Christianity. . . .  271 

relation  to  the  atonement 272 

to  the  offices  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  273 
to   the    Christian    life;    to   the 

deeper  truths  of  Christianity.  . .  274 
a  philosophy  of  the  Trinity  for  the 

Christian  life '. 275 

Truth,  in  God,  as  veracity i,  210 

as  fidelity 211 

Turrettiu,    the    redeemed    without 

guilt ii,  151 

atonement  sufficient  for  all ...  .  220 


INDEX. 


637 


PAOK 

Tyiulall,  religious  feelings  ascertain 

as  physical   facts i,    '-iV 

objections  to  a  providence 344 

U 

Ueber\veg,theontological  argument  i,    74 

Ullmaii,  means  of  the  deepest  pen- 
itence   ii,  lol 

Unity  of  God,  meaning  of i,  216 

not  an  attribute 217 

Ursinus,  method  of  theology i,    51 

V 

Van  Oosterzec,  confessions  not  a 

source  of  theology i,    12 

Vaughan,  mysticism i,    17 

Virtues,  natural,  the  fact  of;  need 

of i,  456 

source  of ;  without  true  spiritual- 
ity   457 

Vogt,  definition  of  species i,  371 

Vrolili,  ape-likeness  to  man i,  133 

Walker,  God  and  the  religious  con- 
sciousness    i,    21 

Wallace,  man  not  of  ape  origin. . .  i,  133 

mind  not  an  evolution 134 

antiquity  of  man 361 

Walton,  two  witnesses  to  sonship.  ii,  343 

Watson,  proofs  of  depravity i,  448 

the  covenant  with  Adam 502 

doctrine  of  atonement ii,  166 

natural  virtues 245 

witness  of  the  Spirit 346 

sacraments  as  seals 393 

common  guilt  of  Adam's  sin...  507 

balancing  grace  in  Christ 513 

no  concession  to  Calvinism 515 

native  demerit  defended 522 

native  demerit  disputed 523 


PAOK 

Watts,  federal  headship  of  Adam .  ii,  509 

Wesley,  mental  powers  of  Adam .  .  i,  403 

divine  permission  of  the  fall ....  438 

change  in  our  seventh  article . . .  624 

definition  of  sin 628 

gracious  help  for  all ii,  244 

witnesses  to  our  sonship 343 

view  of  sin  in  lielievers 367 

time  of  dying  to  sin 370 

holiness  of  life 372 

respecting  sinless  perfection.  . . .  373 

all  guilty  of  Adam's  sin 606 

Whately,  ecclesiastical  polity ii,  417 

existence  of  the  devil 498 

Whedon,  primitive  holiness i,  412 

depravity  without  demerit 625 

Christ  the  Saviour  of  infants. . .  629 

substitutional  atonement ii,  167 

Wiggers,    sharers  in  all  ancestral 

sins i,  492 

Winchell,  Mosaic  periods  of  creation  i,  307 

pre-adamltes 385 

Wisdom,  of  God i,  193 

Witsius,  method  of  theology i,    51 

atonement  sufficient  for  all ii,  220 

Wood,  creative  work  of  Christ.  ...  i,  252 

Worcester,  the  atonement ii,  103 

Wuttke,    man    religiously    consti- 
tuted  ". i,    70 

Y 

Young,  redemption  by  love ii,  114 

power  of  redeeming  love 129 

Z 

Zaleucus,  atonement  for  his  son. . .  ii,  182 
Zeno,  derided  the  hope  of  a  resur- 
rection     ii,  455 

Zinzendorf  and  kenoticism ii,    59 

sanctification  complete  in  regen- 
eration          367 


36 


A 


A 


\' 


DATE  DUE 

TOF? 

O92M0 

Demco,  Inc.  38-293 


